related thread

So, you believe you've found a bug in the Rec_Engine?

Please describe the problem as detailed as you can and try to include error messages if there are any.

In every case include the following Information:

Hello I'm a template please copy and paste me!

Example:
OPERATING SYSTEM: Win2000 SP4
BROWSER(Version): Internet Explorer 6 SP1
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: When I click on a recommendation in NEW/UPDATED nothing happens!
ERROR MESSAGE: none

Solution: Activate Java Script in your browser.


edited to link to related thread ~gal-texter

This post has been edited by gal-texter: Dec 27 2004, 05:42 PM

Hi, I fixed two smaller bugs today.

Nr. 1
• Symptoms: After editing your recommendation it was suddenly part of a series.
• Problem: A piece of the engine code was at a place where it should not have been.
  copy and paste can be dangerous!
• Fix: Unwanted piece of code was removed.
  
  Nr. 2
  
• Symptoms: It was impossible to edit the "based upon book" field. It would always
  display "1-5".
• Problem: The HTML-code did only include one option: "1-5"
  copy and paste can be dangerous
• Fix: Added all 7 options

Don't hesitate to post bugs!

Oh good! I noticed that bug too with the "Writer's Block" Rec. The data entered in the Engine was correct: "based upon books 1-4". But the forum thread showed ""based upon books 1-5". The recommender (WonkyKris) uses the following system:


OPERATING SYSTEM: Windows XP
BROWSER: Juno

(These details are probably moot now.)

FEATURE RELEASE:

I added the ability to add a status to the recommendations

The possible Stati(is this correct?) are:

• In Progress
• Completed
• Abandoned
• Unknown

Since I can't possibly edit the stati of all 700 and more recommendatios, they all show up as Unknown per default.

You could help us a great deal if you could update the recommendations(except the one-shots) you have made yourself. Use the Rec-Engine to do this. (You can't update recommendations which have been made by other members!)
Forum posts will be automatically adjusted, IF they were posted AFTER the initial start of the Rec-Engine a few days ago. All Forum posts that were created prior the start of the Rec-Engine will have to be adjusted manually. This is necessary because we want to save our original forum posts at all costs.

This post has been edited by Thieving Magpie: May 20 2004, 06:10 AM

*checks dictionary.com* Afraid there's no such word as "status". Or "statuses", for that matter.

Btw, is it possible to add a Setting field: Pre-, Post-, in Hogwarts? with reference to the Trio, of course.


FYI for Engine Users:
Pre-, Post-, In Hogwarts Setting:
Please indicate this in the Summary field.


Word Count
We'd also appreciate help in entering the story's word count. If it's not given (like in the case of Fiction Alley stories), then we check if it's in Portkey or fanfiction.net to get the word count from the author's profile page.

If the story is neither in Portkey or fanfiction.net, then we copy and paste the fic in a word processing program to do a word count there.

So if you're terribly bored, you can kill time by posting here some stories' titles, word counts, and the Settings relative to the Trio's Hogwarts' years.

This post has been edited by gal-texter: May 20 2004, 08:28 PM

First of all, the new rec-engine is really awesome! With time it will probably turn into the place to go in the H/H fandom when looking for new fics. Very impressive.

These are not really bugs, merely a couple of minor things that could be done in a slightly better way (nitpicking in other words).

Firstly, when filtering based on word count or chapters, you have to decide between ranges; there's no way to specify "anything with over 15,000 words" since specifying 15,000-50,000 words will eliminate fics with, say, 100,000 words. So instead of a select you could have two inputs with "minimum" and "maximum length", allowing more flexibility for the user. This would also allow the user to enter a very large figure in maximum and thus get all recs with more than x words. The same could be done with the "chapters" criterion.

Secondly, when creating a rec, "NC-17" is selected by default as the rating. Maybe it should be G by default instead? (Taking into acount the average gutter level of most PK users, this issue is probably debatable; but we do have to maintain some kind of public soberness, right? )

That's about it... As already said, you did a superb job on this. I never really thought we'd get anything like this when I first made a suggestion...

As for "status" -- if you're thinking of the Latin inflection, it's a fourth declension noun, meaning it'll simply be "status" in the nominative plural.

Good idea, that could be easily done.

Well I thought when somebody forgets to mention the rating it's better to have a higher than a lower rating. This way no one will be shocked if a G rated fic suddenly turns into R. Maybe I'll force people to choose the rating with the next update.

I'm back again, this time with a "real" bug!

When I do a filter on Word Count, and I set it to 50,000 - 100,000, it seems there's no lower limit; many recs with considerably less than 50,000 words are returned. The easiest way to replicate this bug is to leave everything else at their defaults, but the lower limit is also ignored when filtering on other criteria simultaneously. I'm using Mozilla Firefox 0.8 on an XP sp1 system (most probably irrelevant, but you never know).

That's a good point; it just looked a little weird to have NC-17 on top and then G, PG etc. underneath, is all.

This post has been edited by ricelius: Jun 16 2004, 10:03 AM

FIXED!
No bug, just a typo Damn "copy & paste"!
Query was set to 5000 instead of 50000.
Thanks for mentioning it

i did enable javascript but then it still wont work