Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
All I get is smoke whenever I try to edit a page, look at changes, etc. And for the Home Page, even just viewing it!
This just started; all was fine a few minutes ago.
Reloading clears these, except for the Home Page and locked edit pages.
Try deleting your nLab cookies.
That did it!
Toby, we are currently discussing just this issue in another thread starting here.
I also get error message all over the place since the last update of the nLab. But for instance Zoran and David C. reported that they don’t.
I gather the problem is caused by the combination of a) using one browser instead of another and b) using the nLab sufficiently often to have a critical collection of cookies.
I should check again with Adeel how far things have progressed on his end…
using the nLab sufficiently often to have a critical collection of cookies
I only had two cookies to delete; I’m somewhat confused as to how anybody would collect more than that. The nLab doesn’t set a whole lot of cookies!
Right, it’s not the number of cookie files, but their size.
But no matter what it is that causes the software to break, it seems for the time being that we need to tell users the hack how to workaround it. I’ll add a line to the HomePage…
Okay, I have added a section Bugs and hacks to the HomePage.
… and I’ve removed it.
I know that it soon won’t be my problem, and I gather that you’ve plans for migrating the nLab to another platform anyway, but please don’t write things like that on the Home Page. I’ve put up a section “Reporting Issues” which hopefully conveys the same information but in a bit of a more measured way.
I feel there is a fundamental misunderstanding. When users run into errors and odd behaviour, then it helps the public impression of the site if they are being informed about it up front, while it hurts the public impression (and has hurt in the past) if these things, seen by everyone anyway, are covered-up.
We have a site that often tells users that something very bad has happened, then ridicules them a bit, and then leaves them alone. That makes a bad impression.
It’s not what but how. What I replaced it with also pointed them to the nForum in case of technical difficulty but in a neutral fashion.
If you want to change the error message, go ahead. It’ll be a simple string in the code somewhere. Probably a good idea for it to contain a link to the nForum.
Not sure what you are getting at regarding neutral, but I don’t have more energy now for this.
Can’t Jacques do something about this? It seems like a serious problem in the software if after upgrading, users get disturbing error messages with no indication of what they need to do to fix it.
We probably should find the error message and make it more helpful. But I think that Urs has the right idea about being up front about potential errors. I tried to put back Urs's advice in a way that perhaps looks more like what Andrew would like.
I’m fine about being “up front”. I’m not fine about the tone that Urs originally used.
I’m also still completely in the dark about who is seeing the error message. Urs reported it, I managed to reproduce it, I discussed it with Jacques who suggested a possible reason and fix, I reported that back to Urs who … did nothing but continue complaining. Has anyone else gotten this error?
If Jacques is right then it pertains to the size of the session cookie. This accumulates a bit because it holds information about getting through the spam protection (if that wasn’t there, there’d be complaints about the spam filter triggering too easily). So this is probably only seen by very heavy editors who already frequent this place. Moreover, it would be useful to know if clearing the cookies fixes it once for all or if Jacques needs to lower the amount of information held in that cookie.
Just slapping a message on the home page without really understanding the issue is not being “up front”. It’s “annoying technical support”.
Anyway, it needs changing again as I’ve changed the 500 message to avoid mentioning smoke. It wasn’t difficult to find: there’s a file called 500.html (there’s another one called 404.html which used to mention cheese. It no longer does.).
Yes, I’m annoyed. No, I don’t want any “We’re not trying to annoy you it’s just …” posts.
I have no reason to complain, just as a user of any nLab page has no reason to complain about shortcomings. In both cases it is understood that the item is created by volunteers who have a separate profession to take care of and who are trying their best to produce something awesome, but who might be at an early stage of their endeavours, and that if there are any glaring open issues then everyone who cares is kindly invited to step in and lend a hand.
Also, problems on my end are the least concern, given that I am an experienced nLab user I know the ins and outs of dealing with it. I’ll figure out a way to hack my cookies when I find a spare minute for that. My concern is that other users come to this site here may not know how to handle or interpret its behaviour and turn away. This is a concern for me, since I keep information on the nLab that I strictly do need to be publically available. That’s why I want to spread the information for what to make of the nLab software in a way that people know what they are facing.
I am quite convinced that the more we go around and explain to people that Instiki is at a very early version stage, the more they will appreciate what it actually does. You are afraid that it sheds a bad light on Instiki. But with software, people will listen to the advertisement only for a while, then they will try it out and make up their mind. It would hurt the nLab content if we proclaimed it to be all perfect and shiny. Instead it is good to be up-front with the fact that it is a project in continuous progress that has major deficiencies, waiting to be taken care of by somebody. Just the same holds for the software it runs on, methinks.
I guess in some sense the nLab is always a -version. But it is probably counterproductive to come out and say this.
As a piece of matter-of-fact information, not meant to be a complaint: deleting cookies on my computer makes the error messages discussed above go away only for a dozen or so of edits, then they come back. I went through this several times now.
Re Andrew #15: I got this error. See the original comment in this thread. As Urs reports in #18, the problem comes back, for me too.
I haven’t tested yet whether I get it.
Thanks. That’s actual useful information that I can pass on to Jacques.
Starting with no nLab cookies, how many page edits does it take before it comes back?
I haven’t strictly counted, but it’s not a huge number. Maybe a dozen edit/submit-calls.
By the way, on the positive side: I sure do notice that the Lab is quicker. That’s great.
I’ve reduced the number of session keys held in the cookie slightly. Delete your nLab cookies and report back if this does or doesn’t change anything.
So during editing this morning the error frequency seems to indeed have dropped as compared to yesterday. I had to delete cookies twice and restart the server once. That’s maybe a little less than it was in a comparable time yesterday.
Today it looks like the bug has disappeared. (knocking on wood)
Turns out the error message still appears every few dozen hits. But then it appears just once and reloading makes it disappear for the time being.
(This is a piece of matter-of-fact information, not a complaint.)
I’m getting a lot of 500 errors now. Reloading resolves them.
What are you doing that causes them?
It’s happened when editing a page, after clicking ’submit’. The change has been made, but it shows
Application error (Apache)
Please report this on the nForum (in the Technical category), giving as precise details as you can as to what triggered the error.
Back to the Home Page.
Also I sometimes see what’s been changed recently on the ’Recently Revised’ page, and links here can generate the error message.
On another point, if it’s easy to do, would people like the ’Recently Revised’ to show only the past few days? It’s handy to use to check up on spam, but at the moment lists every page that’s ever been changed.
David, we did consider this as well as having also a static long copy, periodically updated, for the older edits. Unless the second is implemented the first should not be changed I think. Some people use RR for recent entries and some precisely for the older ones, forgotten, from the time when they edited or seen editing some other circle of entries. I think that about 80% of use of RR for me is not related to updating entries in last few weeks, but to remind me of some earlier bursts, typically few months old.
1 to 30 of 30