Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2009

    Zorn wrote:

    I also notice that if I reedit some old comment in n-Forum it does not change its status. The n-Forum software reports the time of the last edit, as of when the first version of the entry was submitted. Thus updates within the same entry; by entry I mean the very comment, not the chain of comments. I think corrections to old comments could be dated when they were corrected, what the others think?

    I replied:

    I agree with you about dates; or rather, after the Comment Time, where it says ‘edited’ it should say when edited too. That way we get the time of both the original and of the last edit.

    Edited comments also don't count as unread; I try never to edit them unless I've just posted them and see a typo or something (or maybe to cross something out).

    But then I decided to move the discussion to a new thread in the proper category.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009

    Let me check that I understand what is wanted:

    1. Where it currently says "edited", it should say "edited at ..." (should it also say "by"? Only three people have the ability to edit a given comment: the original author, Toby, and the n-Forum Admin (me but not me)).

    2. When a comment has been edited, it should have it's read/unread status marked as "unread" again.

    I've just checked and the edit timestamp is stored in the database so it should in theory be possible to display this. So the first should be relatively easy, just involving a cosmetic change to the theme files.

    The second could be more difficult as the read/unread status is recorded by simply counting how many comments in a particular discussion that a user has read. So to mark a comment as unread involves resetting that counter for all users, and also means that all subsequent comments also get marked as unread. I can see that this would rapidly get irritating!

    I think that editing existing comments is regarded as being something that shouldn't generally be done. Correcting typos, removing misinformation or damaging information are okay, but adding significant new information should be a new comment.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009

    I agree that editing comments should only fix typos etc. For that reason I don't think it makes sense to mark edited comments as unread.

    Giving a timestamp for the edit would be reasonable, but not a big deal.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    Yeah, I'm not sure that I really want (2) either, but I brought it up for discussion.

    I would definitely like (1), however. Edited by would also be good; I've never edited anybody else's comment and doubt that I will, but it would be nice to have that on record, at the very least for the original poster to see!

    If unreadness is determined by counting, is it adjusted when a comment is deleted? (Has that ever happened?)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009
    • (edited Nov 17th 2009)

    How does that look?

    Regarding deleting: comments are never truly deleted (well, hardly ever). Rather, they are hidden from view unless you have High Powers (errr, that's Toby). So deleting comments doesn't change the count in the database.

    (Some trivial rubbish added in the edit so that it was edited)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    Looks great to me.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    I think that has to rate as the easiest request so far!

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    Yeah, that looks good.

    By the way, to judge from the links presented to me, I don't have the power to edit other people's comments, only to delete them entirely. Which is probably OK, since I only imagine deleting spam comments, and there's no point in editing those.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    @Toby: that makes sense, actually, thinking back to why I gave you those powers in the first place.

    Okay, so edits can currently only be done by the author and by the n-Forum Admin. Does it still make sense to have the "by X" field? I could easily make it so that it's only displayed if the editor is different to the author - that makes it stable against the chance that I grant others that power (or go on an editing rampage whilst logged in as the admin).

    Any objections to that? Or wild shouts of "Yes, that would be fantastic! Just what this forum needs!"

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009
    • (edited Nov 17th 2009)

    Yes, that would be fantastic! Just what this forum needs!

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    No objections from me.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009
    • (edited Nov 17th 2009 by Mathforge Admin)

    Inspired by that outpouring of enthusiasm, I've done that.

    Here's a random edit by the admin.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    Right, so if you compare the post just above with my earlier one on this thread then the "by" bit gets added only if someone else edits a post (and just to clarify: only the admin can edit posts).

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009

    We need emoticons.

    :beer:

    :)

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2009
    • (edited Nov 17th 2009)

    Looks great!

    Edit: Thanks!