Hi,

It is unclear to me whether the new version, which incorporates the review module, is in Perl or PHP.

Also, does anyone have this implemented on their site yet? I'd like to see a working set up, even if it is only from the viewer standpoint.

TIA,
ATKOgirl

Hi,

With 2.1.0, you get the original Links SQL, plus a page.php script that can do all the user side functions in Links SQL using PHP and PHP templates (i.e. add links, display categories, search links, etc). The admin is still in perl, and everything works off the same configuration file.

We don't have a demo yet, but plan to shortly. The only visible changes will be the review system.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.

Hi Alex:

Thanks for your quick response. A couple of more points to clarify:

Am I correct in my understanding that the original Links SQL still allows the generation of static pages rather than dynamic php pages?

Also, if a directory runs in static mode, how does the reviews module work? Does it only add the reviews when the directory is re-built or can the reviews be instantaneous, or at least built at certain specified intervals, possibly through a cron job?

Thanks,
ATKOgirl

Hi,

Yes, you can still build static html pages, and use page.php only for the dynamic aspects (add, modify, search, etc).

The reviews can be displayed dynamically via reviews.cgi?ID=5 to show all reviews for link id 5. We will be adding the ability to build them statically soon.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.

Another question from me...


Does the ability exist for the admin to approve/edit (i.e. spell check) the reviews?

ATKOgirl

Hi,

Yes, reviews must be validated before becoming live.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.

Why did you program the Review plugin like that?

It should be flexibile to both the user and end-users, IMO.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me

What if someone made an abusive review with swearing all over the place?

You'd be happy for that to show on your site?

How about 20 reviews by a spammer promoting his own site?

I haven't run the code, but surely it should at least be an option?
account deleted

So the only difference will be the PHP and the review? Will there be a price for upgrading?

Hi,

No, it's a free upgrade!

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.

Hi,

This is a problem. And it shows off all the problems I've pointed out with making images immediately available.

1) There are many problems trying to get reviews (or "features") to work in both
logged-in and anonymous mode. This is then complicated by running in dynamic
and static modes. This is all _much_ easier to do in dynamic mode WITH log in.

2) Virtually every review site requires a user to log in. This affords two sorts of
checks. One, it validates at least one email address (and I would offer re-validations,
and logging of this the way w3t did in part). Two, it tags each review/item to a
specific user. Three, it makes functioning more logical. Four, it allows a users
reviews to be reviewed, or deleted, en masse if they turn out to be a spammer,
obnoxious or otherwise a problem.

3) Without a logged in user, there is no way to track or group items, or do
damage control.


If you are going to allow reviews to go un-verified, then you need to verify the
users, and tag the reviews to a user.

If you are going to validate/verify each review, then you can go without the
verified user, but you have extra work.

I posted all sorts of variations of this when I discussed the review mod about
6-8 months ago. It got really, really complex, really fast.

In the upload mod, I also gave examples, but because the upload could
occur in a single "session" it was possible to allow an anonymous user to upload
a group of files to a link, at that moment -- but not later. (You then start to
get into passwords, emails and such, which a REGISTERED USER avoids.)

It is very, very easy to cause a user to register before posting. People
expect it. They _DON'T_ want to give out names, addresses, credit cards,
etc, but they will fairly easily give you an email address. They know they can
change that if they have to (and then they have problems, but they still
leave an audit trail if legal issues arise).


I really believe, even more strongly, that there is no place for anonymous
posting. You must give at least a validated email address. If a person won't
do at least that, then there is no reason to have that person as a user. It's
a big invitation for problems.




PUGDOG� Enterprises, Inc.

The best way to contact me is to NOT use Email.
Please leave a PM here.