Forum Search Forum Posts matching all AND Creator is "supplicant" In all forums :| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #1 posted February 20, 2001 at 8:54am (EST) |
romkey wrote:
> we're not blocking any ISPs at
> apocalypse, so that's not what's
> up
Yeah, I figured that was very likely to be the case.
I've accessed SC from another ISP using the same browser, no software configuration changes etc. etc., so I'm confident it's not my end. Which leaves my ISP (where I was and shall continue to point the finger  )... which is not really a major surprise considering it's pretty much the cheapest isp in the country.
The strange thing is if I use a different ISP to access SC it works, but then going back to my old isp it works for a couple of days after that too. I figured that it was some kind of weird problem with my isp not being able to make the initial connection, but being ok after it loads the site from my cache.
But then I used the other isp (same computer etc.) and *didn't access SC* (so it couldn't have been in my cache) and yet I'm able to access it now as if nothing is wrong. Could be whatever problem there was fixed itself... but I doubt it.
I find it very odd... just doesn't seem to make any kind of logical sense. | supplicant
| | #2 posted February 19, 2001 at 12:11am (EST) |
I've been having trouble accessing SC (as far as I can tell it's entirely my ISP's fault... either that or apocalypse is blocking out my ISP) for the last few months, which is why I'm not around anymore. While it's letting me through right now I suspect that'll only last a day or two (same thing has happened before... can't be bothered going into detail). With so many other things I should be doing anyway it's not a bad idea giving up this wonderful time sink  So while I may be around in the near future it's not especially likely. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #3 posted December 30, 2000 at 2:23am (EST) |
In case anyone has been wondering why I disappeared without notice two or three weeks ago: I stopped being able to get through to SC. I assumed SC was down... for the first few days :) Then I figured it was probably my end, which it certainly appears it is. I'm currently going through another isp that I won't have access to for more than a day... so not sure if it's my isp or what, but I'm sure I'll figure something out (eventually). But yeah... nothing happened, just can't get through and might not be able to get through for a while longer.
See you all again later some time. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #4 posted November 21, 2000 at 5:20pm (EST) |
Wicksy wrote:
> I have quite a few surveys with
> over 200 votes!!
Errr... really?? That didn't quite sound right so I just checked... and of the 261 surveys listed under your name a grand total of 0 had over 200 votes. One had 172, and after that the next highest was something like 134. You have a few over *100* votes, but not over 200. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #5 posted November 21, 2000 at 5:06pm (EST) |
Guthrie wrote:
> I see from the stats that the number
> of surveys has been declining since
> July which is a shame.
[snip]
> What should we do.
The number of active surveys has halved in the last year or so... but that's not really all that relevant. I think bill might have toughened the rules for making surveys inactive, and even if not all that it shows is a lack of continued discussion causing surveys to go inactive.
What you should be looking at to see if there is a decline in survey numbers is the number of new surveys. If you are in fact looking at the "Surveys per week" graph already then I think you are perhaps failing to take into account the fact that the huge spike in the middle can be attributed almost entirely to Richard, who has since thankfully calmed down. Ignoring that abnormality in the data you find it is basically behaving like it's typically eratic self
> While we're all talking mad electoral
> systems, should we continue with
> a vote where a single for the status
> quo (reject survey) wins while
> at at least five votes are required
> to actually allow a survey to pass?
It takes 5 votes to pass a survey, and 5 votes to reject a survey. The one vote you refer to is simply to ask for improvement to a survey, and it can be nullified by a mere one vote. Where's the problem? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #6 posted September 8, 2000 at 10:01am (EST) |
It would be good if comments directed specifically at me were not filtered. So for example if I had X filtered "X replies to Supplicant" messages would get through anyway. But since some people would want absolutely all messages to be filtered regardless obviously it would need to be optional... and hence perhaps wholly impractical to implement? Would be useful though; sometimes filtering is, imo, the only option, but I still hate flat out ignoring people. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #7 posted August 24, 2000 at 3:45am (EST) |
Been meaning to find out what are the 'limits' on what you should add to the dictionary? For example I have added "Pfft" and would add "Hmmm" should it come up, neither of which are actual *words* exactly. Would you prefer I not do this and leave it to only 'real' words as found in a real life dictionary? |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #8 posted April 18, 2000 at 9:45am (EST) |
Bill, judging by my quick look through Inactive New I think you fixed it too. Thanks! |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #9 posted April 17, 2000 at 12:13pm (EST) |
Sometimes I wish you could rate the banner ads here I am currently taking the "Take our fun survey!" survey that I've been seeing a lot of banners for here... and it is the worst survey I've seen, it's absolutely terrible. |
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
supplicant
| | #10 posted April 17, 2000 at 8:17am (EST) |
Basically you go through the surveys and all is well, but it doesn't actually save what you've looked at. So you go back to "Inactive New" and everything you've seen (which is no longer new) is still there. |
Next page (only 10 shown here) |
|
