On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:04:23 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Having a bot flag would be good for a number of reasons but your
problem would not be solved by that. In my opinion this is not something
we can do in the API (personally I think the history tab on the web
page was a big mistake, I
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:31:50 -0700, Gregory wrote:
This is the ideal solution. I actually want an option to see bot edits
in the history. But only when the edited objects are in the area I'm
looking at (or at least near).
Agreed, I would also like to see edits in my area of interest or near
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:04:23 +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Having a bot flag would be good for a number of reasons but your
problem would not be solved by that. In my opinion this is not something
we can do in the API (personally I think the history tab on the web
page was a big mistake, I
On 6 April 2010 12:51, Valent Turkovic valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
I can only try to speak with bot programmers and ask
if it is possible not to span so vast areas.
This is the ideal solution. I actually want an option to see bot edits in
the history. But only when the edited objects are
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:54:31 +0100, Shaun McDonald wrote:
On 4 Apr 2010, at 17:57, Valent Turkovic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:11:12 +0100, Polderrunner wrote:
Why bother whether the changeset was created by a bot or not. Simply
offer the user the choice not to display big changesets
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:11:12 +0100, Polderrunner wrote:
Why bother whether the changeset was created by a bot or not. Simply
offer the user the choice not to display big changesets (say those
covering more than 5 degrees in either latitude or longitude). That
should get rid of most bot edits
On 4 Apr 2010, at 17:57, Valent Turkovic wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:11:12 +0100, Polderrunner wrote:
Why bother whether the changeset was created by a bot or not. Simply
offer the user the choice not to display big changesets (say those
covering more than 5 degrees in either latitude or
When will bots be removed from history in Potlach? It is really hard to
see what is going on in some area when all I can see are bot entries and
(big) entries.
Please, please remote bot entries from Potlach history.
Here is how history of edits currently looks like for my home town:
On 28 Feb 2010, at 10:12, Valent Turkovic wrote:
When will bots be removed from history in Potlach? It is really hard to
see what is going on in some area when all I can see are bot entries and
(big) entries.
Please, please remote bot entries from Potlach history.
Here is how history
Tom Hughes wrote:
When will bots be removed from history in Potlach? It is really hard to
see what is going on in some area when all I can see are bot entries and
(big) entries.
How do you propose that we identify bots?
Wikipedia requires accounts used for automated editing to have a bot
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:26:00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
How do you propose that we identify bots?
They have names, on the screenshot I would see 90% less noise if only
xybot user is removed from the list.
There could be easily comiled a list of the bots that make most of the
edits, there are
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:49:05 +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Wikipedia requires accounts used for automated editing to have a bot
flag. This information is then used to add Bs next to Bot edits in
history/watchlist/... and for a Hide bots filter in these lists.
Instead of making this a property
On 28/02/10 11:35, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
The alternative would be to educate each other on how to map properly,
so the bots don't have to fix sloppy mapping all the time.
Another possibility would be more people learning that there is no one
official or proper way to map which they need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Hughes schrieb:
On 28/02/10 11:35, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
The alternative would be to educate each other on how to map properly,
so the bots don't have to fix sloppy mapping all the time.
Another possibility would be more people learning
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:35:50 +0100, Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote:
The alternative would be to educate each other on how to map properly,
so the bots don't have to fix sloppy mapping all the time.
I would love to see bots that are making changes it the changes were in
area I'm monitoring, but I see
Hi,
Valent Turkovic wrote:
There are some valid ideas that don't need much cpu processing or some
fancy coding. Just tag bot accounts as bots and offer to remove them from
history list.
That's an el-cheapo solution that would scratch your particular itch but
still it would hide bots that
Am 28.02.10 12:26, schrieb Valent Turkovic:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:26:00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
How do you propose that we identify bots?
They have names, on the screenshot I would see 90% less noise if only
xybot user is removed from the list.
btw. xybot's author has reduced the
Tobias Knerr wrote:
Instead of making this a property of an account, we could also
implement bot flags for individual edits by attaching a bot=yes to the
changeset.
good idea! i just implemented a bot=yes tag for changeset of xybot and
its brothers.
it's now the history-tab-programmers'
Valent Turkovic wrote:
There are some valid ideas that don't need much cpu processing or some
fancy coding. Just tag bot accounts as bots and offer to remove them from
history list.
Why bother whether the changeset was created by a bot or not. Simply
offer the user the choice not to
19 matches
Mail list logo
