Editing function implemented

Changes, updates etc. related to this website will be posted here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#31 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:26 pm

There seems to be a bug/change with the text box's, any next line spacing will simple be wrapped after your press submit. e.g. http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=132 'Another alternative is X-Firefox.' used to be on the next line down.
Bug fixed.
In terms of the progress of this site you seem to have made some very radical changes (for the better), but will you still keep the submission process the same? Or will you be looking at implementing a new submission system?
As I mentioned before, I am currently working on a new submission system that is more democracy than dictatorship. The group edit function is but a stone in the foundation for this new system. For more information, see this thread.
Also what should be done about the entries that have Geocities websites and are no longer down-loadable via 3rd party download sites?
We should make direct download available for these entries. What are some of these apps that you know of?
When using the search function on the homepage, if more than 5 results are returned the "Page: 1 2 etc" links do not contain the search term (the ?q= element of the URL).
Fixed.
I also notice that the page item is not bounds-checked. Follow this link for an example: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?q=notepad&p=5
Fixed.
EDIT: As a side note... has the link anchor been removed from the logo image? Or am I only imagining it was ever there? It makes sense to have that as a permanent link back to the home page, in my opinion.
This was never there (only in the forum page), but now that you mentioned it, I think it's a good idea, so I have added the link. Thanks!
EDIT 2: Having just used the function, I also note a minor typo. "Members should test new versions for portability being posting an update, unless it's a very minor update" should probably read "Members should test new versions for portability before posting an update, unless it's a very minor update". Sorry for nit-picking.
Fixed.

Thanks everyone!

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#32 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:45 pm

Just found another bug. Backslashes appear to be filtered out in the text boxes. I will only have time later in the day to work on squashing it, so in the mean time, use forward slashes instead.

freakazoid
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Editing function implemented

#33 Post by freakazoid » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:54 pm

Hey Andrew,

I've got a text field request for TPFC listings.

Checker is one of our most active forum posters and he does a valiant job at notifying everyone about new versions.
One of the things he does best is add a "What's new" block to his forum posts.

Since the new system is designed to stop these "new version" posts in the forums, as per discussion in this thread, http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... f=8&t=5609, maybe add a "What's new" field for TPFC listings?

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: Editing function implemented

#34 Post by Checker » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:43 pm

@ freakazoid: Thank you !

@ Andrew Lee: In this case I completely agree with ashghost.
ashghost wrote: "...but I think it would just add more clutter than utility ..."

In my opinion the TPFC-database is the wrong place to add this.
I thought that a forum for updates would be the right place for posting that kind of information.
But maybe I was wrong ... because you seem to dislike this kind of traffic at this forum.

freakazoid
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Editing function implemented

#35 Post by freakazoid » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:59 pm

I guess adding a "What's New" field will clutter the database; I guess I could always just click on the software's website link.

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: Editing function implemented

#36 Post by Checker » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:02 pm

... and there you will find new versions, too ;-)

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#37 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:36 pm

Just found another bug. Backslashes appear to be filtered out in the text boxes. I will only have time later in the day to work on squashing it, so in the mean time, use forward slashes instead.
I have fixed this bug.
I already deleted more than 350 of my postings to save space for "more complex discussions"
I think "What's new" qualifies as more complex discussion :D I was more referring to those one-liner posts like "XXX has been updated to V4.3".

Anyway, I think having a "What's new" field to go with each database entry is a better arrangement than having them separately in the forum (or posting them in the comments section, like what some other folks do). We can all agree with that. It shouldn't be too difficult to display the field under a collapsible section so that it will not clutter the main page too much. What do you think?

In the long term, we should definitely have a separate link that goes to the changelog that displays the edit history together with the "What's new" field (one row for each version).

Until I add the new field, you guys are welcome to post the "What's new" to the update forum as usual. It shouldn't take me too long to add the code. Will keep you posted.

freakazoid
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Editing function implemented

#38 Post by freakazoid » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:19 pm

[quote="Andrew Lee"]In the long term, we should definitely have a separate link that goes to the changelog that displays the edit history together with the "What's new" field (one row for each version).[/quote]

Sounds good to me!

User avatar
chadross
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#39 Post by chadross » Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:54 pm

I think adding a "What changed" section is a great idea. Personally i much prefer to get all my information from one spot.

donald
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:14 am
Location: knoxville TN USA

Re: Editing function implemented

#40 Post by donald » Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:14 am

I noticed something today, some perhaps a lot of applications have outdated comments.

Example [url]http://www.portablefreeware.com/?id=483[/url]

The first comment [quote]CD: Why use anything else? Under 150 kb. No registry entries. Reliable, low resource usage, no spyware/virus, skinnable. Does exactly what it is supposed to. [2006-03-24 13:23][/quote]

The comments that are out of date and uninformative about the application and alternatives could also be a point of editing.

Since the database includes just the latest version that is acceptable, the entries that no longer apply might be removed or hidden.

Just my 2 cents but these are potentially misleading to some (when not specifically contradicted in the entry itself), and otherwise pointless.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#41 Post by Andrew Lee » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:55 pm

Anyway, I think having a "What's new" field to go with each database entry is a better arrangement than having them separately in the forum (or posting them in the comments section, like what some other folks do). We can all agree with that. It shouldn't be too difficult to display the field under a collapsible section so that it will not clutter the main page too much. What do you think?
I have added this new field (we should call this the "Checker" field, since it's inspired by Checker's unparalleled work :D)
The comments that are out of date and uninformative about the application and alternatives could also be a point of editing.
I remove spam and non-informative comments on a day-to-day basis, but there is a lot of gray area, so a lot of cases are not clear-cut. If you feel a comment ought to be removed, either PM me, post on the discussion forum, or post your own comment there.

In the example that you pointed out, the next comment by Pepe immediately corrects the outdated error in the previous comment by CD, which is great!

User avatar
Checker
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:00 pm
Location: Ingolstadt [DE]

Re: Editing function implemented

#42 Post by Checker » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:27 pm

@ Andrew Lee: Thank you ... for this "Checker"-field !

freakazoid
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Editing function implemented

#43 Post by freakazoid » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:10 pm

Thanks Andrew!

And thanks Checker! I see you've been busy! :)

User avatar
m^(2)
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:38 am
Location: Kce,PL
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#44 Post by m^(2) » Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:46 am

I'm experiencing some date issues:
Today I updated foxit reader entry (corrected license: it's adware).
Result:
[quote]Updated by m^(2) on 26th November 2009[/quote]
Strange. It's not the date set on my computer.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Editing function implemented

#45 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:53 pm

I'm experiencing some date issues:
Today I updated foxit reader entry (corrected license: it's adware).
Result:
Updated by m^(2) on 26th November 2009
Strange. It's not the date set on my computer.
Fixed! Thanks for letting me know.

Post Reply