Re: planet "top posters" section
От | Robert Treat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: planet "top posters" section |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201004212118.58745.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: planet "top posters" section (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: planet "top posters" section
(Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On Monday 19 April 2010 04:21:08 Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat > >>> > >>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more > >>>> trouble/confusion than any benefit it has produced, and at this point > >>>> I think it could be dumped, and with that our top 20 would become much > >>>> more reasonable looking. imho. > >>> > >>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so > >>> far offered. > >> > >> I disagree - I like the teams feature. > >> > >> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not > >> including the people under each team. Maybe something like > >> > >> Top posters > >> ----------------- > >> > >> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 > >> Andreas Scherbaum - 5 > >> Magnus Hagander - 4 > >> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 > >> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 > >> > >> Top teams > >> ---------------- > >> > >> OmniTI - 5 > >> EnterpriseDB - 4 > > > > This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think. > > > >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite > >> long. > > > > Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are > > short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really > > long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've > > been easily shortened). > > > > I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams > > to the top listing, is trivial. I actually think this looks bad... it's pretty cluttered. I'd rather we dropped the teams from the top and listed team members under their respective teams (offset). *shrug* > > The second one will require the > > reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached). > > More importantly, there's a flaw in your query me thinks. OmniTI currently shows having 9 posts in the team section, which also matches the breakdown of my cohorts (4,3,2) in the top posters section, however I also have a blog post on the 13th, so I'd think that we should have at least 10 posts on our "Team", no? I'm guessing others might be off as well, I only noticed cause I knew I had blogged recently. -- Robert Treat Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: