I've set the default cutoff to one hour
That is driving me MAD!!! WHY??? The only reason I use my watchlist is when I log on after being off for 10 of 15 hours to see what pages I am interested in have been worked on in my absence by others. Instead I end up being told what was worked on in the last hour, which I can see from the blooming Recent Changes anyway! I end up having to do a second watchlist search having reset the perameters. An hour-long search is worse than useless.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Server problems, James -- Watchlists traditionally have been a little too weighty on the server to let them run willy nilly anymore. As I understand it -- its only temporary until more usable customization can be added -- and regardless its nothing to get all up in bunches about. :)
-S-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
james-
I've set the default cutoff to one hour
That is driving me MAD!!! WHY??? The only reason I use my watchlist is when I log on after being off for 10 of 15 hours to see what pages I am interested in have been worked on in my absence by others. Instead I end up being told what was worked on in the last hour, which I can see from the blooming Recent Changes anyway! I end up having to do a second watchlist search having reset the perameters. An hour-long search is worse than useless.
I agree, the 1 hour default is kind of silly. We really need to find a solution that allows watching thousands of articles without delay. Since Brion is an avid watchlist user himself I'm sure he'll optimize it some more, but if not, I'll try to see what I can do.
Regards,
Erik
james duffy wrote:
I've set the default cutoff to one hour
That is driving me MAD!!! WHY???
Because it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than a longer cutoff, and it's fairly convenient to click now and again during the course of a day.
The only reason I use my watchlist is when I log on after being off for 10 of 15 hours to see what pages I am interested in have been worked on in my absence by others. Instead I end up being told what was worked on in the last hour, which I can see from the blooming Recent Changes anyway! I end up having to do a second watchlist search having reset the perameters. An hour-long search is worse than useless.
Oh, well in that case I should just yank the watchlist feature entirely? ;)
If it bugs you that much, bookmark a more convenient time and click your bookmark when you need it. Most browsers will even let you put such a bookmark in a big convenient toolbar.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion-
Because it's MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than a longer cutoff, and it's fairly convenient to click now and again during the course of a day.
Rumor has it that there are actually people who use Wikipedia only for a limited time each day; in fact, I have heard (as of yet entirely unsubstantiated) claims that some people do not even use Wikipedia each and every day. Advances in Wikipedia technology will surely contribute to the assimilation of these unfortunates (recent Star Trek episodes highlighted some possible uses for nanotechnology in particular).
Alas, some of these wretched souls have ended up with rather large watchlists due to my "Watch articles by default" feature, so the 1 hour cutoff on large watchlists threatens their salvation. If we seek to make them part of our collective, we must accommodate their strange ways, for otherwise they may be so frustrated by the given behavior that they will consult our universe-encompassing compendium even less frequently.
Remember, until we can forcefully integrate all of humanity into the Wikipedia neverous systems, we have to come up with wacky reasons for people to join on their own accord.
Report prepared by Wiki-Drone #52
Erik Moeller wrote:
Rumor has it that there are actually people who use Wikipedia only for a limited time each day; in fact, I have heard (as of yet entirely unsubstantiated) claims that some people do not even use Wikipedia each and every day.
These people probably have shorter watchlists, which are not subject to the 1-hour default cutoff for long watchlists.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Erik Moeller wrote:
Alas, some of these wretched souls have ended up with rather large watchlists due to my "Watch articles by default" feature, so the 1 hour cutoff on large watchlists threatens their salvation.
I often wondered about the wisdom of that feature. I had it on when it was first introduced, and found that I was accumulating a list of articles in which I had made only minor spelling corrections. If a person really wants to watch an article they should need to make the positive effort of activating it.
I d like the feature that shows how many articles are on the list. My list currently has a humble 116 articles, but I do make a point of weeding out articles that I no longer want to watch.
Ec
Ray-
Alas, some of these wretched souls have ended up with rather large watchlists due to my "Watch articles by default" feature, so the 1 hour cutoff on large watchlists threatens their salvation.
I often wondered about the wisdom of that feature.
Unfortunately there's no easy way to make this the default only for non- minor edits, since we obviously don't know if the edit is minor until it is made (some JavaScript magic could be used, but that, too, is non- trivial, since we don't want the box to be unchecked if a minor edit is made to an already watched article). We could add an "Ignore watch request if edit is minor" option that is evaluated post-save, but that may be too confusing and would probably only end up being used by 4 people total, who activated it by accident and then leave a question on the Pump about mysterious watchlist behavior.
I intend to add an additional option that allows you to only watch newly created articles by default. Expiring watchlist entries after a certain default period (unless you make an edit in that period) may also help (but also has some screwup potential).
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Ray-
Alas, some of these wretched souls have ended up with rather large watchlists due to my "Watch articles by default" feature, so the 1 hour cutoff on large watchlists threatens their salvation.
I often wondered about the wisdom of that feature.
We could add an "Ignore watch request if edit is minor" option that is evaluated post-save, but that may be too confusing and would probably only end up being used by 4 people total, who activated it by accident and then leave a question on the Pump about mysterious watchlist behavior.
I intend to add an additional option that allows you to only watch newly created articles by default. Expiring watchlist entries after a certain default period (unless you make an edit in that period) may also help (but also has some screwup potential).
I would still prefer eliminating the "Watch articles by default" feature altogether.
I don't like the idea of automatically expiring watchlist item. The oldest one on my 115 item watchlist (other than talk pages) is from February 11. My list includes a number of things that I would like to get back to if I ever have the time away from the mailing lists :-)
Eclecticology
Ray-
I would still prefer eliminating the "Watch articles by default" feature altogether.
About 450 users on the English Wikipedia seem to disagree with you, since they have enabled the option.
I don't like the idea of automatically expiring watchlist item.
It would not be mandatory and possibly namespace-specific.
Regards,
Erik
Hi all,
I've written an Emacs major-mode for editing Wikipedia articles offline. It currently only does syntax highlighting, a la the vim syntax file in [[Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting]]. I am planning to add some convenience functions.
The major-mode is attached, in the hope that people will find it useful even at this early stage of development. You'll have to place it in your load-path, and possibly modify auto-mode-alist if you want to associate it with a file type.
As per the convention for Emacs packages, I have placed it under the GNU GPL. Should I upload it to the Wikipedia?
-- Yidong
Im sure that would be awesome. :) Xiao Xin -S- --- Chong Yidong cyd@stupidchicken.com wrote:
Hi all,
I've written an Emacs major-mode for editing Wikipedia articles offline. It currently only does syntax highlighting, a la the vim syntax file in [[Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting]]. I am planning to add some convenience functions.
The major-mode is attached, in the hope that people will find it useful even at this early stage of development. You'll have to place it in your load-path, and possibly modify auto-mode-alist if you want to associate it with a file type.
As per the convention for Emacs packages, I have placed it under the GNU GPL. Should I upload it to the Wikipedia?
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/emacs-lisp
-- Yidong
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com