Donno what you're talking about, that review task looks just fine to me... (I've found the cause of the issue here, will write it up on the dup I guess) — Shog9 ♦22 secs ago
As others have surmised, there are lots of reasons why you might be able to "improve" a suggested edit without getting credit for it:
You could've hit your limit for suggested edit reviews that day
You could've somehow gotten review-banned after loading the review task but before submitting the...
@AwesomePoodles @Shog9 - Yes, there should be some limit to the length of time spent. If you are taking an hour you could probably write your own answer if there are to be that many changes (or that much effort). Squatting on the edit blocks it from getting through the queue in a timely manner (and the slim? chance of further edits that others are entitled to make).
@Rob I'm not particularly interested in trying to judge that. After all, you can always just... Open up a text editor and write as much as you want, then refresh the page, click "edit", and submit.
OTOH, that dude who was submitting reviews > 6 months after the tasks were completed... That I'm interested in judging.
@Rob "Squatting" is not a factor in my cases due to very low review activity. Anyway, if there is to be a time limit it (A) shouldn't orphan the edit/review and (B) should provide a warning or indication.
Anyway, the crux of the problem here wasn't even that there's a limit on how long you can take to review (there isn't) - it's that the operation isn't atomic: for very, very legacy reasons, editing completes the review but doesn't actually store the result - which then has to be submitted separately.
There's a reasonable argument to be made for fixing that as well, but, much bigger change.
@Shog9 - Perhaps an 'inactivity warning' should come up at 10 minutes, something more aggressive than a "Chat ping". As long as the person is actually editing, and not gone to dinner/asleep, then I'm not against a lengthy edit. Indeed for some sites you would have to read and digest a complex paper (Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Computing, etc.) and check your facts as you go. --- Rather than "orphan/reject" it could be saved and the user kicked from the review queue and sent to the Q&A's
webpage where all their efforts would be preserved in the 'edit window'.
BUT, I'm not seeking to make a lot of work for the Devs, just wondering what is fair for everyone. We don't want a good edit tied up and everyone locked out from offering their own 2¢ and the benefit of the editor's wisdom and improvement.
As long as my 2¢ floats around somewhere, and your happy with how it is, good enough for me.
@Rob If memory serves, we unlock after 5 minutes - that is, we'll assign the review to someone else. At that point, whoever gets their review in first "wins".
(slightly more complex than that, but not by much)
@AwesomePoodles ok, got a patch in the queue for the Improved edit markdown mismatch. That's an old bug that apparently got fixed in the main path but never addressed on the API; high time we did.
@forest I just deleted two messages, that seemed a lot like you were just repeating what you said in another room... So even if you didn't try so, it looked a lot like it.
either mods have access to the full profile info like staff members do, in which case I don't care - it is part of your "work" or... you don't since you have no way to know which one was my mail.
I am not derpy enough to use a really recognizable one like [email protected]
@Derpy :) Just making the point that deleting it, although nice, makes little sense if you have a diamond, because if I wanted malice, I don't need that e-mail ;)
I don't care about rep or revenge downvotes. I don't comment because of the unwelcoming responses I am likely to receive from the OP. I have an aversion to being verbally abused, I could care less about a mosquito bite. — Tiny GiantJul 13 '18 at 14:37
You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake!
..... counting answers on the time swag, considering multiple submissions by the same users... I am somehow sure that every positive scored answer got a watch.
Because two of the optional requirements to become one is to be born or married into royalty, but it says nothing about being adopted into a royal family.
Screenshot
About
The vote counts are a great tool to determine whether an answer is disputed or not. Unfortunately, not many of us have enough time to join all Stack Exchange websites and get 1000 reputation.
This script unlocks the "View Vote counts" feature for those who are not logge...
Hi Harry Stylesheet, welcome to Puzzling! I'm not sure which search brought you here but the problem you describe will not be answered on this specific site. To get an answer from users that have the expertise about the topic of your question you'll have to find and then re-post on the proper site. Check How do I ask a good question and What is on topic on the target site to make sure your post is in good shape. Your question is definitely off-topic on Puzzling and is better deleted here. — Glorfindel2 mins ago
you have XML property which value must be a case-sensitive "TRUE" otherwise they will be considered false, others that must be case-insensitive "TRUE" otherwise will considered false, some that are considered true if assigned a value, even if that value is "FALSE" and so on....
@forest ^ would you prefer having to work with this one?
Arthur Mitchell, often referred to as the "Trinity Killer", is a fictional character in the Showtime TV series Dexter. The character is portrayed by John Lithgow, who won a Golden Globe Award and a Primetime Emmy Award for his performance. He is the main antagonist in season four. In 2016, Rolling Stone ranked him #34 of their "40 Greatest TV Villains of All Time".
== Character overview ==
Arthur Mitchell is portrayed as an unassuming suburbanite and family man — who for 30 years has been living a double life as a serial killer. In the series, FBI agent Frank Lundy dubs him the "Trinity Killer...
@ShadowWizard $50 for coffee!, I hope the included messenger is female for the price. Should have stuck with Cronat Gold. I'm cheap? and get 340g of instant coffee for less than U$6 which lasts over a month (I guess, never checked); and I drink well over 10 big cups a day. 50 bucks, those capsules are an expensive way to go.
Less expensive than at the Four Seasons hotel too.
But if you are really an aficionado then you would buy beans and fresh grind.
The "No Name" instant coffee I buy tastes at least 80% as good as ground coffee (except for Maui) but costs 1/3 to 1/4 the price; and is certainly more convenient.
In keeping with your conversation of yesterday there's also Kopi Luwak, which is very expensive. (Yuk!).
@Tinkeringbell well messengers come and go... No strings attached! :)
@Rob for 100 capsules? $0.5 isn't much for cup of espreso or cappuccino if I add milk. Oh and got Jacob's Cronat too, here it comes in 200g jar and cost around $6 too.
In restaurants or kiosks plain espresso cost at least $2
Code fences work now.
function DeepThought(task) {
this.task = task;
}
DeepThought.prototype.answer = function () {
switch (this.task) {
case "life, universe, and everything": return 42;
default: throw "not implemented";
}
}
(view source on this answer)
As much as ...
@Shog9 I recently proposed this. I have now thought even more about this and the users feedback, built new mockups using your Stack system - should I write a new question or just update that one? My edit would change about 50% of the post
@Shog9 I just noticed that the rep is shown on mobile if it is updated via the heartbeat. Is this status-bydesign or a bug? Would write a meta post but maybe you can say it is bydesign and I don't have to ;)