How to improve the site?
-
And we have new spam attack now :) .
Few month ago i solved robot registration in forum by replacing captcha with logical questions. -
Looks like the robots studied logic for last few months :-)
-
Regarding the spam attacks, I've come out of my dusty moderator corner (which I need to do more often) and have been helping clean up some as I find them.
-
[quote author="andreyc" date="1395291811"]Looks like the robots studied logic for last few months :-)[/quote]
I forgot add "in my forum" (not DevNet). Logical filter still works :) -
Banned the spamming accounts.
I'll take a look at the registration page.
It does have filters in place to identify spammers, but apparently they don't catch everyone.Thank you everyone who cleaned the posts.
Would you have suggestions for moderators from other time zones than Europe? We need better worldwide coverage. -
I am in +5 time zone and can help with moderation every day between UTC 4:00 - 13:00 o'clock.
-
I nominate "sierdzio":http://qt-project.org/member/12548, even though is is from Europe. He is a veteran and a very helpful member in these forums.
-
Noted.
I added a few more moderators, from different time zones. We should be better covered now.Tero
-
[quote author="JKSH" date="1395319499"]I nominate "sierdzio":http://qt-project.org/member/12548, even though is is from Europe. He is a veteran and a very helpful member in these forums.[/quote]
True, I'm in the boring Central European Time. Thanks for nomination and the new rights, I'll use them well.
-
As was already mentioned, the licenses for the docmarks and the Wiki content need to be brought into line with the documentation and example code licenses. It surprised me back in the day that the developer site was launched with a license mismatch - I don't think the developers properly considered how the documentation team would merge contributions from the site into the main docs.
Unfortunately, it may be difficult to relicense existing content now, unless you get contributors to explicitly agree to it. I don't think it would be impossible - perhaps just a click to agree form, or get them to resubmit their work via the contribution model - but someone has to implement that.
I'd encourage migration of existing Wiki content to MediaWiki. The ExpressionEngine thing might be OK to use now but using a different markup syntax is not a compelling feature these days. It wouldn't surprise me if MediaWiki had better support for anti-spam measures and access controls, too.
-
Just to throw another forum platform candidate into the mix: "Discourse":http://www.discourse.org/about/ is an ambitious project that redesigned forum software (which they call "discussion software") from the ground up. It's founded by the co-founder of StackOverflow and is "[i]nspired by the reputation/badge/governance ideas and concepts behind Stack Exchange", so I have high expectations for this product.
It's very new though, and I'm not sure if it is interoperable enough yet with the other platforms that the Qt Project website will need.