NEW! Google Custom Search
Loading
Report a Bug
Hi everyone,
Think you've encountered a bug? Report it. This is a dedicated spot for technical problems (and solutions!), so it's a little different from feedback. I don't imagine we'll always need this folder, but it's a good way right now to separate true technical bugs from personal preferences and features you miss. I will log your bugs into our system and the developers will triage and troubleshoot. Then, I'll circle back and let you know what's up.
Print this page
Email this MessageNavigation
Recent Discussions
Barbara Kafka's Roasting Book 24 replies
Anyone made Beef Caronnade? 37 replies
share a magazine 1 reply
Fine Cooking 115 12 replies
dec 11/Jan12 Issue 26 replies
Whatever happened to Chocolatier Magazine? 11 replies
Cook the Issue 9 replies
Oatmeal cookie recipe 5 replies
substitutes for salt 1 reply
roasted tomato tart/quiche 1 reply
Best Recipes For Eggs 2 replies
Birthday Cake 8 replies
Metallic taste with muffins 1 reply
Chocolatier magazine index? 3 replies
Puff Pastry homemade vs store bought 5 replies
Cookies-- what are you baking? 34 replies
Gas Range 1 reply
Kitchen "bucket list" 2 replies
End Grain Cutting Boards 2 replies
Kitchen Aid Stand Mixer 9 replies
exporting to mastercook 7 replies
Asian Recipes : Fried Rice Creations 2 replies
cookbook inventory on-line 4 replies
2011 Fest 4 replies
Help! 5 replies
search function 3 replies
Clean up rude language 4 replies
Oct/Nov issue 9 replies
Double e-mail notification 8 replies
Recent Troubles with Spam Filter 12 replies
The "new" feature is not (post #68156, reply #1 of 52)
The "new" feature is not working dependably for me, or maybe I don't understand it. I was just trying to manually clear some of the old, unread messages. Under T&T it indicated that there was one new message. I just scrolled through the entire folder and found none. Frequently there will be more new messages indicated than there actually are.
Somewhere here someone said that if you read one new message in a thread and then reply, the rest of the "new" designations will disappear. This is not what I am talking about. Even if I do not post in the thread, there are fewer new messages than indicated.
I have also reported this and (post #68156, reply #3 of 52)
I have also reported this and just checked very closely. On the thread "How to ensure this site" on the opening board it indicates 3 "new". I carefully went to the bottom (they all open, so I don't know how you can avoid that). There was one new message. I didn't reply so that doesn't apply. Others may say this isn't true, but it IS for me.
So, looking at what Marcia just posted below, maybe it was her two messages that don't show.
Hmmm, interesting. I saw (post #68156, reply #8 of 52)
Hmmm, interesting. I saw Marcia's two blank posts on that thread. Maybe it's a difference in browsers or OS? I'm using IE8 on (gag) Vista.
Ann
"The elders were wise. They knew that man's heart, away from nature, becomes hard; they knew that lack of respect for growing, living things, soon led to lack of respect for humans, too." Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota Sioux
Ann, I use Mozilla on Vista, (post #68156, reply #13 of 52)
Ann, I use Mozilla on Vista, if it makes a difference. Have had no more problems posting, but I couldn't log off last night.
Robyn, I twice tried to post (post #68156, reply #2 of 52)
Robyn, I twice tried to post a short comment in the thread "How to ensure this site fails", and while I've posted before with no problems, the comment failed to post in both instances this time. Nothing was different that I could see.
And you were defiitely logged (post #68156, reply #4 of 52)
And you were defiitely logged in, right? It's probably silly to ask, but I gotta cover all my bases. There've been a few times I've tried to do or see stuff on the forum, then I realize, "Duh. I haven't signed in."
Doesn't it prompt you to do (post #68156, reply #5 of 52)
Doesn't it prompt you to do so? Every other board switches you to a login page. I would think that would be user friendly. Sorry for the tangent, but it is offered as a suggestion. someone might be permanently turned away if not.
I was logged in because I (post #68156, reply #7 of 52)
I was logged in because I went directly to this thread and posted to you about the problem. That post "took".
Just to reiterate stuff (post #68156, reply #6 of 52)
Just to reiterate stuff already explained in detail:
1. The #new does not work properly
2.Brose should be browse
3. link to "favorites" no carried over from old forum.
MEAN CHEF RECIPESSee the "greetings from (post #68156, reply #9 of 52)
See the "greetings from Biscit" post.
Robyn, Earlier tonight I was (post #68156, reply #10 of 52)
Robyn, Earlier tonight I was able to read messages and post a few replies--but just for a short while. Eventually, whenever I tried to post a reply, right after clicking on "save", I got a screen from Drupal telling me that the forum was offline, and then my connection to the site was lost. This happened to me twice tonight. It sounds like the same problem Biscuit reported or a variant of hers. I could read posts but couldn't reply and when I tried to post a reply, the connection was lost completely.
If I only could address this (post #68156, reply #11 of 52)
If I only could address this to ALL, I would.
Forgive me, I couldn't resist.
http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
help to provide free mammograms for women in need
You are probably aware, but (post #68156, reply #12 of 52)
You are probably aware, but the first computer "bug" was actually caused by a real bug which had gotten in among the vacuum tubes. The name sort of caught on, and it's been a software or hardward "bug" ever since.
Forgive you? I thank you; we (post #68156, reply #17 of 52)
Forgive you? I thank you; we could use a little humor right now! ; )
I have a really old, very (post #68156, reply #28 of 52)
I have a really old, very nerdy limited-edition print called "Debugging the System." It shows a guy (perhaps God) holding a staff while a parade of bugs crawls out of what might be piece of hardware (I haven't seen it in quite a while - I can't remember).
Anyway, this reminds me of that print.
I just noticed that the (post #68156, reply #14 of 52)
I just noticed that the thread about crispy pancakes is listed as being started by me.
This is an old thread and was not started by me. The first few posts have been dropped, mine is the first that appears here but it was a response to a question.
Recent replies is not up to (post #68156, reply #15 of 52)
Recent replies is not up to date.....the most recent are from yesterday.
Robyn, have you read Kathy's (post #68156, reply #16 of 52)
Robyn, have you read Kathy's EXCELLENT idea in the "how to ensure" thread about compiling a list of things for us that need "fixing" that you will take to this meeting next week. A number of us would feel very good if it was addressed in that way.
I hope the rumor that nothing will be done until all the sites are up and running, and all problems can be addressed at once is not the modus operandi. That will be a long time. Patience sometimes only has a finite life span.
Absolutely. Though, CT was (post #68156, reply #18 of 52)
Absolutely. Though, CT was down for a stretch yesterday due to FHB's forum launch, so now I'm a little behind on my reading. I'll catch up.
It would be wrong to think nothing will change before the meeting. For example, I just learned how to add back a useful feature: attaching files/photos to comments. Now, I need to make sure everybody knows about it and tries it out. (I'll post momentarily).
It's some of the more major stuff we need to address as a team. Global changes, that sort of thing.
Along with "# new" not (post #68156, reply #20 of 52)
Along with "# new" not working properly, the # of replies is also incorrect. For example, if I go to "Recent Topics," I see this thread "ISO Gretchen re. stuffed cabbage casserole" has one reply, when in fact it has six. The # new and # of replies is consistently lower than they should be. I hadn't seen anyone address the "replies" bug, so I thought I would mention it.
Here is a new one. The dates (post #68156, reply #19 of 52)
Here is a new one. The dates on some of the posts are totally incorrect.
Go to home, then click on CT Get-Togethers. Go to Chapel Hill Mini Fest and check what it says: Created- 6 days 17 hours ago and last reply -
1 year 29 weeks ago.
There are many more like this
MEAN CHEF RECIPESMeanChef--I suspect that (post #68156, reply #21 of 52)
MeanChef--I suspect that anything imported from the old system is going to have that problem. Technically, the thread WAS created 6 days ago when this forum was created.
Ann
"The elders were wise. They knew that man's heart, away from nature, becomes hard; they knew that lack of respect for growing, living things, soon led to lack of respect for humans, too." Chief Luther Standing Bear, Lakota Sioux
If you go back and look, the (post #68156, reply #26 of 52)
If you go back and look, the time created is correct for most discussions
MEAN CHEF RECIPESI have to say that the (post #68156, reply #23 of 52)
I have to say that the incredibly detailed time stamps that this new software gives to posts just astonishes me. Although it's somewhat amusing to be told a post was started x days, y hours and z minutes ago, it doesn't add any real value. I wish Drupal cared as much about to whom a post is addressed!
Recent Topics isn't being (post #68156, reply #22 of 52)
Recent Topics isn't being updated.
Nor are Recent Replies, the (post #68156, reply #24 of 52)
Nor are Recent Replies, the info has been the same since the initial blackout.
Recent Topics and Recent (post #68156, reply #25 of 52)
Recent Topics and Recent Replies are both stuck.
Since that was how I had been trying to manage this place, I presumed that the site didn't work and no one was posting at all yesterday. Frustrating.
Thanks. I saw this too. Will (post #68156, reply #27 of 52)
Thanks. I saw this too. Will report it and see if we can't get it fixed Momday morning.
The top of my screen does not (post #68156, reply #29 of 52)
The top of my screen does not look right, is missing, but I do not know how to do a screen shot.
Robin - I don't know if (post #68156, reply #30 of 52)
Robin - I don't know if you've noticed but there's some conflict between the options below posts (on your original post, the options are op top of the box) and the "Forum Status Updates" box. I was going to post a screen-print (I thought that we were able to include attachents to replies) but I don't see a place to do that. If you'd like, I can email the attachment to you directly (just email me with an address to send to).
Now that I'm typing a reply, I see that the comment box into which I'm typing extends behind that box as well.