Some Slight Changes to the Forums



  • Reply 141 of 142
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,506member
    avon b7 said:
    jSnively said:
    jSnively said:
    Relax, it's very obviously a bug. We're in the middle of upgrading our stack on a bunch of servers, launching native Apple News support, doing a full HTTPS roll-out, updating our backend APIs, plus a whole bunch of other stuff I can't talk about. I just haven't had time to fix it yet.

    Edit: Fixed it.
    That all sounds great, congrats. But it was not obviously a bug -- not with some of the forum policies of late such as editing mild posts, holding an umbrella for newbie trolls, disabling comments on anything related to the government, removing Dislike, removing Funny, etc.. There's just no way to know what you guys think is a feature and what is a bug. Glad you fixed it tho!

    (oh some time you should consider fixing the login process -- after authentication is fails to redirect back to the referring page, instead forcing you to use the browser's Back button twice, followed by a browser refresh in order to load the new state.)
    What forum policy have we implemented that I haven't openly talked about?
    While I don't follow your every post, the decisions to edit the personal style of posts, and protecting newbies from criticism were something I was only aware of after personal correspondence with you. Again, my point was that with some of the newer, weirder policies, it's quite understandable that we can't tell what is a bug and what is a feature.

    Disappointing to see the login bug is still here, a year later. After successful authentication the forum should re-direct the user to the referring (source) page rather than re-directing to the forums main page. 
    I don't think there's any protection of newbies facing criticism but if they get jumped on or labelled after a few posts, it's clearly not very welcoming for them.
    Well, you weren't involved in my personal correspondence on the matter; I don't know how you could see the policy existing or not from your vantage point.

    If someone creates a new account, jumps into the fray, and says some really dumb stuff, I'm not sure why they shouldn't be "jumped on" -- meaning, their poorly formulated ideas dismantled on the very forum they put them forth on for public review. That's the marketplace of ideas. To not allow criticism of their criticism is the definition of protection.
    If ANYONE says some really dumb stuff then less than positive reactions should be expected.

    Not every less-than-favorable Apple post is dumb and deserves a frothy response. Maybe that's where you had the issue you did, but no one but you and the management knows the specifics. I do completely agree with site leadership that new voices with new takes deserve to be heard even if their point of view is not yours or mine. Things would get stale around here otherwise. 

  • Reply 142 of 142
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 367administrator

    In a recent reply I was told by one of the forum/admin types that 'Like' == 1++ and 'Informative' == 2++ (although this is not reflected in the sum of votes) in the footer of the post.

    In this the 'O' with the 'i' in it adjacent for there should be at least a short explanation that denotes a comment as innovative -- especially when it denotes a value of 2 (wooden nickels to what is oft times considered a negative opinion to some or all/of the comment).
    Having a hard time parsing this. I think what you're asking are the specific point values attached to informative vs like, and what the differences between the two reactions should be?

    1 Like = 1 point
    1 Informative = 3 points

    The numbers on the reaction buttons are simply the amount of unique users who have interacted with them. In addition to that, each user has a score attached to their account, that's what the points values contribute towards. That score is only visible on a users profile page, and it's really just a number for people to look at.

    As for when they should be applied -- use your best judgement. Ideally informative would be reserved for posts that give relevant and important information -- whether that be a personal anecdote from someone involved, or a deep in-depth examination or explanation of a topic. Like is just a simple "I agree with this", Informative is an exceptional high-value post that provides extra context and/or data.

    Hope that helps.

    Well, you weren't involved in my personal correspondence on the matter; I don't know how you could see the policy existing or not from your vantage point.

    Well I was, and if that was your takeaway then you misunderstood what was said.

    But yeah, login bug still here -- every time I use the "Sign In" link on a forum thread, get redirected to the authentication page, authenticate successsfully, it simply dumps you back to the Forums Home page, requiring you to use Back, Back, Refresh in order to return to your source thread. Pretty silly -- post-auth redirects were a normal part of authentication web programming going back 15 years. We solved this problem long ago.
    This is on a list, but it's at the very bottom of a very long list. The fact that where this resides in the forum software means we'll have to remember to re-patch it every time we do an upgrade (even minor security ones) keeps it down towards the bottom. I'm not sure why you keep calling it a "bug" either, that's not what a bug is.

    What is your usage pattern that you are logging in and out from multiple machines so much that this is a problem to begin with?
Sign In or Register to comment.