I'm pretty new on this list, and trying to answer a question posted here on StackOverflow and i am wondering if there is some standard way to post entire models here, not just the "CODE" tab portion. Or for that matter even an image of the view screen.
I don't see any place to put attachments on posts or answers. I suppose I could upload the model to the NetLogo-users Google users-group, which does have a place to upload files, and cross-reference it here. I suppose I could try to open an email channel to the user and send them email with an attachment. I suppose I could post it on GitHub.
But is there some way to attach a full .nlogo file right here that I'm missing? Some interfaces are really complicated and only looking at the CODE tab is not adequate.
And, yes since the .nlogo model is pure text I could paste the entire thing into a window here ( which would object to having code in a text window of course) but that's a lot of extra characters in the post.
Unfortunately there is not. This is actually more of a problem for the questioning than answering as it can be difficult to get the person asking the question to post the relevant bit of code, including the other bits of code that lead up to the problem and give key information like what the contents of a variable may be. NetLogo does not lend itself to MWE at all, and beginners simply don't have the experience to replace interface variables with global variables etc.
Uploading to Google users group and cross referencing is likely to get the question/answer closed as it's not complete. But StackOverflow has a different purpose than the users group - it is supposed to be focussed on specific questions with specific answers - such things as syntax problems and bugs, not design. The last thing we want is interfaces or full models. We tend to be more lenient than other areas of StackOverflow because we know NetLogo has a very high proportion of beginners without support and that MWE in NetLogo doesn't really make sense, but questions that require full models are definitely out of scope.
Related
I've searched the SurveyMonkey website, both help... and developer..., as well as the general net and stackoverflow, and can't find any examples of a SurveyMonkey survey being displayed in an in-page overlay (referred to by some as a "lightbox" or modal).
I think what I need to use is SurveyMonkey's Embed option, as opposed to Invitation or Survey Popups:
http://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/How-do-I-embed-a-survey-or-have-it-open-in-a-popup-window-on-my-site
I'd like that overlay div to appear, close, etc upon the same triggers as a regular survey would/could, that is open if the user has no previous SurveyMonkey cookie, close when completed or closed by user, etc.
I can probably hack through a solution by forcing the survey into a custom overlay I build, but the behaviors would be more tricky, probably having to read the SurveyMonkey cookie, I suppose. Or, perhaps I could check for certain IDs of SurveyMonkey content that exists at various stages to pull off the behaviors (but I'll have to look at the generated code throughout the process to know if this is an option).
In short, it seems like someone else has surely run into this issue before and likely that a solution has already been created, at least partial to save me some time. I just can't find it.
Here are some things I found on the embed itself:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2013/04/23/how-to-embed-your-survey-on-a-website/
https://www.surveymonkey.com/blog/en/blog/2013/04/16/video-tutorial-how-to-embed-your-survey-on-a-website/
Any and all help much appreciated, pointers/resources, example code, etc. Thanks!
I'm trying to write a documentation for a code that I've put on bit bucket. The documentation involves math formulae and as far as I know, there is no way to have inline formula in bit bucket except by using some latex-to-image convertor online and inlining those images into the documentation that is written via markdown.
I used this website as my latex-to-image convertor:
http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor
I have two separate formulae with two different links and I include them in my markdown code as:
1)
(source: sciweavers.org)
(source: sciweavers.org)
If you edit my question, you would see the actual link and you would see that they are different. You could easily see that one of them involves $\lambda$ while the other involves $\beta$ but for some unknown reasons both on documentation as well as here in my question, these formulae are shown the same. I spent a lot of time on it and still not figured out why they are the same.
I really appreciate your help.
The problem is that both images returned by http://www.sciweavers.org/, while having different URLs, appear to be the same request. The sciweavers server is returning the same image for both URLs, which could be considered a bug on their part. However, I suspect they don't care because they were not expecting to be linked to, to generate images for you.
Hmmm, however, editting the equation to only the difference seems to work fairly reliably. Therefore, I conclude that sciweavers' server is not doing a good job of determining when an identical request is made.
Our company recently took a job where the customer is using a Concrete5 site. They want some minor changes to the site.
Upon thoroughly examining the site, we find ourselves UNABLE to make any edits to the Custom Blocks that are installed. We come from a MODX background and used to being able to edit chunks and backend code.
Can someone let me know which section or areas we should be looking in? Or have they somehow locked it all up?
Thanks!
Concrete5 is definitely not locked up -- it's actually one of the easier PHP CMS's to modify (once you know the lay of the land of course). If it's custom blocks you want to edit, they will be located in one of two places:
SITEROOT/blocks/block_handle/...
SITEROOT/packages/package_handle/blocks/block_handle/...
(substitute "block_handle" with the lowercase_underscore name of the block, and "package_handle" with the lowercase_underscore name of the package -- most likely the same as the block handle)
If you want to ask a more specific question -- e.g. how do you make a specific customization to a specific piece of functionality for a specific block -- you will probably be better off asking in the Concrete5 forums (http://concrete5.org/community/forums). It's still a relatively small community compared to the other PHP CMS's and frameworks, but people are very helpful and non-trollish there.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just looking through some of the webmaster stats that Google provides, and noticed that the most common links to our website are to some research articles that we've put up in PDF format. The articles are also available on the site in HTML.
I was looking at the sites (mostly forums and blogs) which link to these articles and was thinking that none of the people clicking the links would actually get to see our website, and that we're giving something away for free and not even getting some page views in return.
I thought that maybe I could change my server settings to redirect external requests to these files to the HTML version. This way, the users still get the same content (albeit in an unexpected format), and we'd get these people to see our website and hopefully explore it some more. Requests coming from my site should be let through to the PDF. Though I don't know how to set this up just yet (keep an eye out for a follow-up question here), I'm sure this is technically possible. The only question is: is that a good idea?
What would you consider the downsides of redirecting traffic from external sources such that they see our site, not just get our content? Do they outweigh the benefits?
The only other alternate option I can see is to make our branding and URL much more visible in the PDF files themselves. Any thoughts?
Hopefully your PDFs are equally branded so that visitors will feel compelled to search further in your website. That might be just as important as having visitors briefly stop-over at your website.
I'm usually opposed to all such redirects as harmful to usability. However, in this case a basic content-type negotiation takes place and this might be acceptable. However, make sure that this doesn't break downloads of the PDF documents for users who might have disabled their referers in the browser (I do this, for one).
Sure you could cut them off, but there is a bigger issue at play: Why aren't these people finding you before they are finding these moocher sites?
Possible reasons are:
a) they did find your site, but not the content they were looking for, even though its obviously there, or
b) your site never appeared in their search results.
You may want to consider a site redesign in order to address those concerns before cutting off what appears to be a reliable source of information about your target audience (for you and the people who get your PDFs from elsewhere).
In the meantime, I would suggest you allow the traffic, add a cover page to all of your PDFs that are basically a full-page ad for your site and then enlarge the font on the copyright section of each page so the authorship is very prominent. You have a built in audience now, they just don't know it yet. Show them where the source is.
Eventually, the traffic will come to you and know you as a reliable source for that information.
I would do it. It's your site and your data.
The hot-linkers are essentially 'guests' and you can make the rules for your guests.
If they don't like it, they don't have to link.
I would add a page at the beginning of each article with info about the website, the current article and links to other articles on your website.
I find it more convenient than redirecting the user to a page on your website(that's annoying). Most people right click and download PDF files, what would that do when your redirect ;)
I think the proper thing to do in this situation is to leave the redirects. Here's why:
There's nothing worse than expecting to go somewhere/get something and not getting it (the negative impact would outweigh the positive.)
Modify your content to add a footer such as: "like what you saw, we've got more, check us out at www.url.com"
If your content is good, users will check out your website. These are the visitors you want, they're more likely to stick around and provide your site with value (whatever that may be.) Those that you've coerced may provide you with an extra click or two, but you will likely not see any value given back to your site.
Look at other successful sites that give something away for free: Joel on Software, Seth Godin, Tim Ferriss, 37Signals. The long term will provide better, more consistent value than the short term.
If you go for this solution, see if redirecting to the HTML version also changes the file name displayed by the browser if somebody used 'save as' on the link, else an HTML page would be saved with a pdf extension. Apart from that, I can see no reason why you shouldn't do it.
As an alternative, see if you can add a link to your site to the top of the pdf file. This way they are reminded where it comes from even if someone else sent it to them by email.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I see them all the time and always ignore them. Can someone explain to me why they have become so prevalent? If I'm using a site that allows me to explore it via tags (e.g., this one, del.icio.us, etc.) that's what I will do. Why would I need a "cloud" of tags upon which to click? I can just type that tag(s) into a search box. What am I missing?
It's more of a browse assist than a search assist. If you see a large or bold tag in a tag cloud that interests you it my lead to some knowledge discovery that wouldn't have otherwise been sought out with a deliberate search. When I am browsing del.ico.us or stackoverflow I appreciate the tags as they sometimes lead me to discover related topics.
Wikipedia has an interesting definition:
A tag cloud or word cloud (or weighted list in visual design) is a visual depiction of user-generated tags, or simply the word content of a site, used typically to describe the content of web sites. Tags are usually single words and are typically listed alphabetically, and the importance of a tag is shown with font size or color. 1 Thus both finding a tag by alphabet and by popularity is possible. The tags are usually hyperlinks that lead to a collection of items that are associated with a tag.
It's a easy mechanism to determine which tags are most popular or how dense that tag is populated ( amount of tags).
It's just a intuative interface, I'm fairly certain that's one of the bigger reason's why they are so popular, that and they are very Web 2.0 also.
Why would I need a "cloud" of tags upon which to click? I can just type that tag(s) into a search box. What am I missing?
How do you know what tags are available to type without a lot of trial and error? Even if you know what tags are available, how do you know which are most popular without a bunch more trial and error?
The thing that makes a tag cloud really useful (at least a well implemented tag cloud IMO) is the ability to drill into a topic deeper and deeper.
For example, I could click "Topic A" and then I can see the items in the tag cloud for all tags within the "Topic A" items. I can then drill into one of those sub topic and narrow the items even further.
The stackoverflow tag cloud doesn't do this (which is too bad), but if it did, I could click something like "visualstudio" to drill into the threads tagged visualstudio then click "asp.net" to drill into that, then "javascript". The end result would be a list of all items tagged all three "visualstudio", "asp.net" and "javascript". This is where a tag cloud becomes really useful. Unfortunately, not all tag clouds work this way (but IMO they should).
Because searching for php is not the same as viewing all posts that the owner has tagged as php. Try it.
It helps you understand the focus of the page or site that you're looking at. What topics being discussed the most? What kinds of information will I find here?
If you search for something related to Java and land on two sites, one with a tag cloud showing 'Java' is prominent, and one where Java is almost invisible but 'C#' is prominent it's pretty easy to quickly decide which site is most valuable to you.
Tags give a way of explicitly labelling something with what it is about instead of relying on computers to extract this information.
For example, you might be interested in on questions about stackoverflow. If you search for "stackoverflow" you will get all kinds of questions that are not about stackoverflow at all (e.g. they only contain the word "stackoverflow" because there is some link to another question). By selecting questions that are tagged with "stackoverflow" you get only those post that people have explicitly identified as being about stackoverflow.