It seems that an editor cannot edit a link that is in their category but has also been copied into links not under their control. Is there a way around this?

Hi rayhne,

Are you saying that if I enter a link into two categories of which one is controlled by an editor the editor cannot change the link in any way? That would be a problem!

I look forward to seeing ideas on this one as it will apply to all that use editors.

Thanks!

All I know is that I finally reset my editors to their proper categories and now they can't edit links that appear bot inside and outside their categories.

So they have access within their category to modify links that were not entered in by them?

As long as they appear only in their category. If it's copied outside their category, then they can't edit it. They get an error message.

This also holds true for multi-cat.

I have not been able to simulate this error on my site.

Editor A has Link A in their category. If Link A is copied to Editor B's area, the remaining Link A is still fully editable by Editor A. And, Editor A rightly cannot editor the copy in Editor B's area, nor can Editor B edit the original in Editor A's area. Confused?


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

When you edit a link that has been copied (using the Copy option), you are editing both the original AND the copy. Hence, the error.

This is an interesting problem.
Suppose a link is copied from category A to category B, both with different editors. Does that mean that neither editor A nor editor B can modify it?

Hi



I think this is not an error but a feature in Links..



ONLY the editor for the categpry where the link belongs is able to edit that linek.

Example:

Links A in category A+ under editor Someone

We copy that link to category B under editor someone 2..

Now someone2 will not be able to edit that link although it appears to be under his category...

I have seen this all along and i think it is a nice feature so each link is controlled by one editor regardless of howmany categories it is copied to..
Regards
KaTaBd

Users plug In - Multi Search And Remote Search plug in - WebRing plug in - Muslims Directory

I am going to have to agree with you on this Katabd.

I cannot produce an "error" as such. And the situation described seems to be an intended one, and certainly a useful function.

To go outside of these privilleges, I normally assign an "Area Editor". This editor is higher up the category heirachry, and can move links between one editors domain and another.

Where you don't have an "Area Editor", then you should assign one! Otherwise, its your job to do.

This is how I run mine, and of course I am sure you all have your own methods.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

I have an idea....

What if a LINK could be made RELATIVE like categories can be?

Then the link would have only one record and would be able to be controlled easier!

Any thoughts?

Yes, I like that idea.

I think it was suggested (at least once) way back when.

The idea of having one link, but mirrored into other categories has been proposed, but nothing developed or included that I know of.

I, like others, have multiple instances of the same link which fall naturally into different categories. These are not duplicate links in the bad sense, but a really the same link which fits different areas. If there was a master/slave or mirroring setup, then perhaps the duplicate link checker wouldn't see these links as duplicates.


http://www.iuni.com/...tware/web/index.html
Links Plugins

It creates a problem for me because it means I have to set editors to cover pretty much the whole of the links rather then their own little areas so they can edit their bloody links! And I thought I'd found the perfect link management system...

Bumping this one up so as to alert GT to what looks to us like a significant interface oversight (and hopefully get a workaround).

rayhne is correct. If a link appears in more than one category, it can only be modified by editors who have permissions in ALL those categories!

Here is our story ... Having completed the first stage of our project (compiling an initial set of links, and putting them into appropriate categories with provisional descriptions), we persuaded our reluctant (they unanimously dislike the browser.cgi interface) editors to give browser.cgi another chance.

Result: no editors. All our links are in multiple categories, so effectively the editors can do nothing. We don't have a single link that can be modified by editors through browser.cgi!. None of the links are editable, and none of the editors can do anything. Our only way out would be to give all editors full permissions in all categories, which they don't want and neither do we.

I'm sure that this is OK for many LSQL clients, eg: directories in which multiple categorization is rare, or where it is understood that links may not have equal significance in all the categories where they are placed. But the uses of LSQL are diverse ... GT makes a virtue of LSQL's flexibility in its marketing, and really should not have allowed errors of this magnitude to remain unnoticed. This is a failure of the Testing Dept.

GT: We would be happy with an assurance that browser.cgi will get some serious attention in the eagerly awaited next release. Meanwhile -- is there anything we can do now?

::eagerly awaiting an answer::

::still eagerly awaiting an answer::