Search Ideas
983 ideas match your query.:
Bug: as you cycle through a parent’s versions on ideas#show, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings.
Bug when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions: on page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
Bugs when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea is shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
That it and of itself isn’t a bug if the different revisions leading to the highlighted idea have different numbers of criticisms.
The issue also isn’t that there are other revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea.
The real issue is twofold:
- On page render, no matter how many children/criticisms a parent of the highlighted idea has, only the highlighted idea shown – that’s fine so far – but the displayed criticism count may be higher if there are criticisms that are not being shown. So there’s a mismatch.
- As you cycle through the parent’s versions, the children are suddenly not being filtered anymore, and the highlighted idea suddenly has siblings. Now the criticism count on the parent does always match the number of shown criticisms, but it seems arbitrary to suddenly not filter the children anymore.
The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.
But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.
There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.
Well, he did say “partly”, so that leaves room for personal responsibility.
Why is similarity a bad thing in and of itself? It can be reminiscent of discussions as long as it’s less narrow.
‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.
While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has led me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
Would you like to try formulating an explicit methodology for using Veritula?
I noticed that you’ve started a bunch of discussions but I don’t believe you’ve reached a resolution on any of them.
The purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.
Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
Feature idea: pay people to criticize your idea.
You submit an idea with a ‘criticism bounty’ of ten bucks per criticism received, say.
The amount should be arbitrarily customizable.
There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.
In Brave for iPad, the footer doesn’t extend all the way to the bottom of the page. As a result, in dark mode, there’s a black gap underneath the gray footer. I cannot reproduce the issue in Safari. The cause is unclear; seems to be a Brave quirk.
This UI bug essentially exacerbates a wider issue: that the footer color does not match the background color of the html element, which becomes apparent with scroll inertia on the bottom of the page.
That wouldn’t remove the gap.