May 31, 2011
Today, after reading Zed Shaws latest blog post, I did something really stupid.
Of all internet phenomena I’ve come in contact with, trolling is probably the worst. And although I think Zed is not helping the situation by being so harsh, I can understand why he is really, really pissed off.
In response to this, I started a repo on Github of known trolls. I tweeted about it and Mentalizer correctly pointed out that my repo was more or less an act of trolling in itself. Such a list is worthless without some kind of public criteria for who goes on there, or at least some sensible definition of “trolling”. I offered neither, and I wasn’t prepared to put in the effort, making my initiative decidedly half-assed.
So my public repo of trolls was a bad idea. What do we need instead?
Another bad idea
Here is another well intended but probably really bad idea. I’ll build a site that allows you to propose trolls and allows registered users to vote up their troll-ranking. It will be complete with an API to retrieve someone’s troll-score and automatically blacklist them from your site.
Why is this a bad idea? Well obviously, if I actually built such a site, I would be the first name on the list, voted up by hundreds of actual trolls. So by my own definition, I’d be a troll. If this became popular (which it would have to in order to fullfill its goal), it would become a warzone of mudslinging and attempts to destroy people’s reputation.
This is not the first time I have thought about how to help the internet getting rid of trolls, but hopefully it will be the last, because I feel like I’m wasting my time. I think it would be a huge accomplishment to reduce the amount of trolling to a tolerable level, on the same scale as what Google is doing to fight spam or what Stack Overflow is doing to fight ignorance.
But it all comes back to the old advice: Don’t feed the trolls. By creating any public list, voting based system or whatever, I would be feeding the trolls. My problem is that I don’t really understand the psychology of trolls, so I keep thinking up all kinds of elaborate systems which all fail in the same way: By acknowledging the trolls, feeding them.
Fighting something by ignoring it is really hard.
May 30, 2011
Have a look at this page:
OMG, it includes the word “participle”, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!?
Well, what you have no way of knowing is that you can double-click this or any other word and go to the entry for that word. Not a bad feature at all, but not very obvious either
May 5, 2011
On a project, I have a “Revision” resource and URL’s like
Now suddenly the client wants to rename “revision” to “edition”, so all URLs should be changed to the format
Unless I’m missing something in the Rails docs, there is no option to change the base part of the path without renaming the resource itself. Actions can be renamed, eg. “nuevo” instead of “new”, but I don’t think the path segment for the resource name can be changed (please correct me if I’m wrong).
I guess the proper way to go would be to rename everything: The AR model, all helper calls, controllers, tests etc. Even with lots of automation, this would be a really annoying task and I’m not inclined to spend time on this right now. Who knows if the client will change his mind again?
So instead, I ended up changes the resource from
resources :editions, :controller => "revisions", :as => "revisions"
I’m changing the name of the resource, but the :controller option makes sure the right controller is still called, and the :as option controls the generation of path helpers (so I can keep using eg. edit_revision_path).
Remember to make the same change for nested resources.
EDIT: As Rasmus and Jakob point out, the :path option sets the actual path, not a prefix. I have made some minor updates to the Rails docs to correct this (most instances were already fixed).