On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Devin Asay devin_a...@byu.edu wrote:
So far entries are few (or maybe they are more abundant than I think, but
there is no obvious way to search for terms that have user comments added.
See enhancement request
Good afternoon all.
I wanted to take a little time to post in relation to discussions
regarding Collaborative Docs, one of our new features in Revolution 3.5.
Since the launch of 3.5 we have seen a lot of you taking the time to
post some really useful examples, hints and comments which have
I'd rather have an inverse approach where every comment is approved by
default and we can flag the ones we think should be removed. And yes, the
comments should have bugs in them with links to the QA center. I don't want
to search the QA for every revolution command I want to use, I want the
Thanks, Ben! I've already seen a bunch of new confirmations come in
this morning. This new guidance is greatly appreciated.
Now to comb through my personal scripting notes to see if there are
things others might benefit from!
Regards,
Devin
On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Benjamin Beaumont
Andre wrote:
I'd rather have an inverse approach where every comment is approved by
default and we can flag the ones we think should be removed.
I'm normally quick to agree with you, but on this one I think your good
nature may have you underestimating the potential for problems.
There was
Richard,
but you can't post to the documentation from without Rev. So to spam the
documentation notes, you should be a revolution user. since the post carries
RevOnline login with it, it would be trivial to quarantine abusive users.
And less hours would be spent approving comments... :D
On Thu,
Richard-
I'm with Andre on this. I appreciate your comments about the need for
moderation, but the docs are at least as much a controlled environment
as this list.
And Andre's comment about the need to have bug links is also very much
to the point. When I open the documentation I'd like to know
Andre wrote:
Richard,
but you can't post to the documentation from without Rev. So to spam the
documentation notes, you should be a revolution user. since the post carries
RevOnline login with it, it would be trivial to quarantine abusive users.
And less hours would be spent approving
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:44 PM, Jim Sims wrote:
On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:51 AM, Devin Asay wrote:
communication issue that needs to be fixed if RunRev want this
feature to succeed.
We ought to try to work out the bumps before we dismiss it for its
flaws. It's a new service, and is bound to have
On Apr 16, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Richard-
I'm with Andre on this. I appreciate your comments about the need for
moderation, but the docs are at least as much a controlled environment
as this list.
And Andre's comment about the need to have bug links is also very much
to the
Devin,
if the links and a one line summary or title were on the dictionary then it
would be enough. It's easier to click and navigate away, but I want some
info there, just a link with a 140 chars description, if it works for
twitter it works for us.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Devin Asay
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Richard Gaskin
ambassador at fourthworld.comwrote:
Andre wrote:
I'd rather have an inverse approach where every comment is approved
by
default and we can flag the ones we think should be removed.
I'm normally quick to agree with you, but on this one I
On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Andre Garzia wrote:
Devin,
if the links and a one line summary or title were on the dictionary
then it
would be enough. It's easier to click and navigate away, but I want
some
info there, just a link with a 140 chars description, if it works for
twitter it
Devin wrote:
In the case of Dictionary comments, there could be a third way. What
if Rev allowed volunteers in the developer community to get checked-
out in evaluating the quality of submissions. Once qualified, these
volunteer editors could simply review submissions as they popped up,
On 17/04/09 3:42 AM, Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net wrote:
Richard-
I'm with Andre on this. I appreciate your comments about the need for
moderation, but the docs are at least as much a controlled environment
as this list.
I agree, and I prefer Andre's model to the 'selected users as
Hi folks,
I just want to put in a good word, an unsolicited plug for what I
think is the most underrated new feature in Rev 3.5--the ability to
add User Notes to the Rev Dictionary.
I've been playing trying this out since the beta version came out, and
I really love the potential. So far
Devin-
Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 10:23:52 AM, you wrote:
account. The notes are mediated for quality by RunRev so it takes a
day or two for them to show up. They have also said they don't want
...and that's the downside. It's kind of like the Microsoft approach
to the world: the theory is
I also submitted several notes, and do not see them posted.
Craig Newman
In a message dated 4/15/09 7:10:00 PM, mwie...@ahsoftware.net writes:
...and that's the downside. It's kind of like the Microsoft approach
to the world: the theory is great but the implementation sucks. My
notes have
On Apr 15, 2009, at 5:07 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Devin-
Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 10:23:52 AM, you wrote:
account. The notes are mediated for quality by RunRev so it takes a
day or two for them to show up. They have also said they don't want
...and that's the downside. It's kind of like
On Apr 16, 2009, at 1:51 AM, Devin Asay wrote:
communication issue that needs to be fixed if RunRev want this
feature to succeed.
We ought to try to work out the bumps before we dismiss it for its
flaws. It's a new service, and is bound to have some rough spots,
but I'm sure we can work
20 matches
Mail list logo
