Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

1. Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #1

   I was going to move oneof my subs into in work, and that was gone from the drop down.

2. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #2

   An already private sub had the option in the drop down. A normal does not.

3. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #3

   This goes back to the original issue. If you submit a submission to normal and it is there for over 30 days, it will remain in normal.
   
   Edits and updates will NOT spam the frontpage "recent activity" but the date updated will update.
   
   The only time an update will go into "recent activity" is if you update AND leave a comment from the submission page.
   
   This disallows that feature bug to pop into inwork or private and then back to normal which puts it back on the frontpage.
   
   So, really, there is no reason to put it into in work or anything because nobody will probably notice the updates till you add a comment to one of them and the activity status is updated.
   
   If a sub is NOT normal, you can move it around to status without issue because none of them hit the frontpage yet. You basically only get one shot at the frontpage.

4. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #4

   Because i'm going to gut the thing. I want to tuck it into work, all nice and offline, and then put it back without making a big fuss on it. I suppose requires edit might work. But then it shows on strolenati page.
   
   I wont be makiing any more stubs, thats for sure, but I want to be able to pull main subs back into work and then back into public.  That is does not hit the front page is fine by me.
   
   I think you should add a Hit front page flag, and set it the first time it is set to normal, and allow subs to be edited and resubmitted by moving into into private. 

5. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #5

   Requires edit would not do what you want it to do. That is an admin feature and I don't want to have to take that option away from the admins. That is used for emergency removal of subs on members that violate something. It should also require an approval to go back live.
   
   I guess it doesn't make sense to me why you think you need to hide it while you work. I mean I understand to a point...but I don't.
   
   I suppose most of my thought process is this:
   
   If you submit something, it should be a final product that you are willing to take your lumps or lauds on. If you want to do some fixing up later, that is great, do it, add a comment to update the activity tracker and tell people about it in the forums. From my perspective, I don't see any issue with working on an old post without thinking you need to hide it while working on it. You aren't going to destroy it that much. If you do, maybe you should rewrite it in an entirely new submission and link back to the original. Or you could simply put a disclaimer on the top of it saying you are reworking it, come back later.
   
   Putting stuff into draft mode just to do a few modifications is not a common practice, and not one I want to encourage. Once you submit it, it is out there to link to and hiding it could cause the Horde to be upset. If moving in and out of draft was a common practice we would have had many more old subs popping up to the frontpage and would have realized this issue earlier.
   
   For now, I would ask to either work it offline and update it en masse, or just edit it in place like most of us do now.
   
   That is just my thought on it though.
   
   The frontpage flag was brought up before and is a doable idea ... maybe easier than all the checks I do so I will look into it. I always like more options than less even if I don't completely agree with the need. Give me a bit to look at that though as I have some other bugs I need to squash.
   
   

6. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #6

   K.  One area that I find necessitated the in/out process is major changes in formatting, which does not always play well with cut/paste from external sources.
   
   For example, I plan on some major work on my golden sub The Unseen Fortress at some time, and with its many interlinks, votes, comments and such.  There would be a lot of updates as I need to use the strolen editor to make changes, maybe dozens of save / preview cycles.
   
   Perhaps we could introduce a version system for subs?  :twisted:
   
   I do not mean to annoy you - my workflow it seems is somewhat different then others.

7. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #7

   I may not understand your workflow, but I can respect it.
   
   Versioning is only working on Stubs. ;)
   
   You get me to pay more attention to the content and how it can be formatted. You made me work tables, targets and now will end up making the code a bit easier by being unorthodox. :)

8. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #8

   And I reap the benefits, because I experience the same issues as val, I just don't go to the effort of complaining to get you to change stuff. :D

9. Re: Are we supposed to be unable to set subs as private?

   #9

   Posted in the wrong place somehow. oops.
   
   Said
   
   Speaking of that, write me a better spoiler solution and it is done. :)

Bug Reports · All categories · Guildhall