We operate a ColdFusion site with a custom CSS acting as a directory of various companies. Depending on the type of company, we have a set of subpages containing specific information pulled from the CMS about the company, such as "location/directions". We're looking to add functionality enabling users to add comments to the existing content. I'm looking for suggestions on open source or other available ColdFusion software out there that could work for this. While we could write something custom, commenting tools have been done a thousand times and probably better than we can do it.
While what we're looking for sounds like a blog or forum, its more of a hybrid. We'd like to be able to add functionality enabling commenting on the content we post in the context we post it in. Seems like there must be something out there that can be easily modified and integrated with our CMS.
Does anyone know of anything out there we should look into?
I'm going to vote to close this too, as per the others, but here's an answer anyway.
If you just want to add commenting to existing content, perhaps use Disqus. It's not locally installable (and is not CFML-based; it's all JS), but it does handle most things one would need if just wanting to add comments to a site.
If you want a native, self-managed solution, unfortunately StackOverflow have deemed that sort of question "unworthy", so you'll need to ask elsewhere. Despite being an entirely reasonable question, for which the answers would be helpful to other people later on (which is - in theory - the raison d'etre of Stack Overflow. Although that's hard to tell, sometimes).
I am looking at a content item with many renderings.
I need to move one of the rendering down so it show lower on the page.
I can move it in the Edit presentation settings but as soon as I click ok, the order remains unchanged.
Note, it does work sometimes but is intermittent.
I have looked in the logs and nothing seems bad apart from this:
1032 11:20:45 WARN Long running operation: renderContentEditor pipeline[id={E23237A3-1FEB-4E9A-AEB6-543807ED6CAD}]
I feel this might be a Sitecore bug.
Has anyone experienced this before?
There was a similar issue in 6.5, but I assumed it would have been addressed in an update. Basically, the issue is a result of presentation setting deltas at the item level incorrectly merging with the standard values presentation settings of the item base template.
I would suggest contacting Sitecore support for a workaround or solution. Reference case #387488 and provide detailed steps to reproduce the issue.
Using Sitecore.NET 6.3.0.
Our Sitecore content has a great deal of items that refer to other items via the control renderings collection. This is done by setting a path to the item as the controls' datasource.
Since this link is specified via a path - not an id - to the linked item, it is currently possible to break the link if you change the linked item's location, or delete it completely.
With the goal of either preventing broken links, or at least detecting them before a publish, what is the best approach to avoiding this problem?
I'm aware that it is possible to link in a standard way (reference by id), but this would rule out any links where we must link via relative paths.
Is there any way to go about detecting, or even better preventing broken links of this kind?
EDIT: This is more akin to assigning a DataSource to a sublayout in presentation layout details, rather than doing anything in code. (Its something a content editor would do).
I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I do agree there's potential for a lot of problems here.
While reading your post, I was thinking... albeit a naughty move, but you COULD change the field type of the "DataSource" field. Of course, mucking about in system templates is something to be cautionable about - but in this case, the alternative seems slightly worse.
If doing so, you would need to hook into the getRenderingDatasource pipeline as well, and override the GetDatasourceLocation step.
I've not done this myself, so cannot guarantee it will work. Seems fairly straight forward however :-)
I am new to Redmine and I'd like to see if there is a good way to relate requirements (as stated by a product manager) to issues in Redmine. To me it seems that a low impact way to do it would be to define a requirement tracker and then add a custom field with a list of links to feature tickets.
I have tried doing this but cannot figure out how to add a link within a custom field text box.
So I guess I have a general question and a specific question,
General) Is there a recognised recipe in the Redmine community to achieve a linkage from a requirement to a list of features or issues?
Specific) Can I create a link to another issue within an issue field?
I think the answer to both questions is to use the built-in mechanism to link issues - it's called related issues.
Once an issue is created, you can add link to an other issue and indicate the type of relation (related to, blocks, precedes, etc.)
To separate requirements and features by means of a different tracker seems good to me, expecially if you'd like to apply different permissions or workflows.
See also the redmine manual about related issues, and an example of an issue with related issues http://www.redmine.org/issues/337
EDIT: More recently, subtasks have been added to redmine. They may be interesting to use in a scenario where a feature (issue) is implemented by means of different steps (=subtasks, like designing, programming, documentation,...) and/or by different persons (for example designer, programmer, ...).
Problem
At work we have a department wiki (running Mediawiki). Unfortunately several
persons edit without logging in, and that makes it very difficult to track
down editors to ask questions about the content.
There are two strategies to improve this
encourage logged in editing
discourage anonymous editing.
Encouraging
For this part, any tips are welcome. But of course there is always risks involved
in rewarding behaviours.
Discourage
I know that this must be kept low or else it will discourage any editing.
But something just slightly annoying would be nice to have.
[update]
I know it is possible to just disallow anonymous editing, but that will put a high barrier to any first time contribution (especially for people outside our department!), so I do not think that is an option.
[/update]
[update2]
Using LDAP or Active Directory does not solve the problem since the wiki is also accessible and used by external contractors.
[/update2]
[update3]
I am no longer working for this company. That does not mean that I completely have lost interest in this question, but from my current interest point the most valuable part is the "Did you forget to log in?" part below, and I will accept answers based on this part of the question.
[/update3]
Confirmation
One thought was to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users -
"Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", although with
such a question there is a risk that people will give up or resist editing. However,
if that question is re-phrased in a more diplomatic way as "Did you forget
to log in?" I think it will appear as much more acceptable. And besides that
will also capture those situations where the author did in fact forget to
log in, but actually would want to have his/her contributions credited
his/her user. This last point is by itself a good enough reason for wanting it.
Is this possible?
Delay
Another thought for something to be slightly annoying is to add an extra
forced delay after "save page" displaying something like "If you had logged
in you would not have to wait x seconds". Selecting a right x is difficult
because if it is to high it will be a barrier and if it too low might not
make any difference. But then I started thinking, what about starting at
zero and then add one second delay for each anonymous edit by a given IP
address in a given time frame? That way there will be no barrier for
starting to use the wiki, and by the time the delay is getting significant
the user has already contributed a lot so I think the outcome is much
more likely to be that the editor eventually creates a user rather than
giving up. This assumes IP addresses are rather static, but that is very
typically is the case in a business network.
Is this possible?
You can Turn off Anonymous Editing in Mediawiki like so:
Edit LocalSettings.php and add the following setting:
$wgDisableAnonEdit = true;
Edit includes/SkinTemplate.php, find $fname-edit and change the code to look like this (i.e., basically wrap the following code between the wfProfileIn() and wfProfileOut() functions):
wfProfileIn( "$fname-edit" );
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if ( $wgUser->mId || !$wgDisableAnonEdit) {
// Leave this as is
}
wfProfileOut( "$fname-edit" );
Next, you may want to disable the [Edit] links on sections. To do this, open includes/Skin.php and search for editsection. You will see something like:
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) ) {
Change that to:
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) || !$wgDisableAnonEdit ) {
Section editing is now blocked for anonymous users.
Forbid anonymous editing and let people log in using their domain logins (LDAP). Often the threshold is the registering of a new user and making up username and password and such.
I think you should discourage anonymous edits by forbidding them - it's an internal wiki, after all.
The flipside is you must make the login process as easy as possible. Hopefully you can configure the login cookie to have a decent length (like 1 month) so they only need to login once per month.
Play to the people's egos, and add a rep system kind of like here. Just make a widget for the home page that shows the number of edits made by the top 5 users or something. Give the top 1 or 2 users a MVP reward at regular (monthly?) intervals.
Well, I doubt that this solution will be valuable for hlovdal, given that this question is now two months old, but maybe somebody else will find it useful:
The optimum solution to this problem is to enable automatic logins. This requires two steps. First, you need to add automatic authentication to your web service. Right now, we're using Apache with the Debian usn-libapache2-authenntlm-perl package on our internal application server*. (Our network is Active Directory and, obviously, the server runs on Debian Linux.) Second, you need a MediaWiki extension that makes MediaWiki aware of the web service's authentication. I've used the Automatic REMOTE_USER Authentication module successfully on an Apache web server that was tied into our network via an NTLM authentication module, but I do recall that it required a bit of massaging the code to make it work:
I had to follow the "horrid hacks" given on the extension's page, changing the setPassword() and addUser() functions to always return true instead of always returning false.
Since Active Directory is case-insensitive and MediaWiki isn't, I replaced both instances of the statement $username = $_SERVER['REMOTE_USER'] with $username = getCanonicalName($_SERVER['REMOTE_USER']).
Since I wanted to only allow certain people within the company to use our wiki, I set autoCreate() to always return false. It doesn't sound as if you need to worry about this, so you should leave autoCreate() at always returning true, which means that anybody on your company network will be able to access the wiki.
The nifty thing about this solution is that nobody has to log in into the wiki, ever; they simply go to a wiki page and they are logged in under their network ID.
* We just switched to this from a Red Hat server that was using mod_ntlm. Unfortunately, mod_ntlm hasn't been updated in a while and it's been starting to sporadically fail. I mention this because I've started to stumble on a performance issue with our current MediaWiki configuration that may require further code massaging....
Make sure users don't get logged out if they look away from the screen or sneeze or scratch their head. You want long, persistent, sessions. Once logged in, stay logged in.
That's the problem with the MediaWiki our company is using internally - you log in, do stuff, then come back later and it logged you out, but the notification of not being logged in anymore is so insignificant on the screen that the user never notices.
If this runs within an internal network, you could pull Active Directory information so that no one has to log in, ever. That's how I do it at work. That is, if they are logged into their windows machine, then my webapps can pick up their username and associate that (or their userid) with their edits.
I don't know if this would be easy to add to MediaWiki, though.
I'd recommend checking out wikipatterns.org - a great site about the social aspects of wikis
Explicitly using some form of directory service (LDAP) would probably be a good idea, so that your users are always fully identified. On the other hand, wikis are subject to their own dynamics, in fact some wikis are so successful because they can be anonymously edited, so that's another thing to keep in mind.
Apart from that, personally I'd try to create some sort of incentive for users to contribute openly and identifiable: this could be based on a point/score system so that there are stats shown for all users who have contributed to the wiki each day, this could possibly even create some sort of competition.
Likewise, the wiki could by default not show any anonymously contributed contents without them being reviewed first, which would be another incentive for users to contribute openly.
SO has an extremely low barrier for posting. You could allow people to specify their name when making an edit. When they are ready, they can finally log in to avoid having to type their name all the time.
You said this is in a departmental situation. Can't you add a feature to the wiki where it makes an educated guess as to who is editing based on the IP address, and annotates the edit accordingly?
I agree absolutely with everyone who recommends carefully researching the effects of anonymity in your application before you start "forbidding" it. In a great many cases people prefer anonymous editing because they DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED ABOUT IT, IDENTIFIED WITH IT, OR SUFFER SOME PROBLEM FOR POINTING IT OUT. You need to be VERY sure these factors are not driving users to prefer anonymous edits, and frankly you should continue to allow anonymized edits with a generic credential login like "anonymous_employee" or "anonymous_contractor", in case someone wants to point out an issue without becoming identified with it.
Re the "thought... to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users- "Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", it's a good idea, but do not "re-phrase" in a way that suggests it is wrong to not be logged in as yourself, i.e. don't say "Did you forget to log in?" I'd instead note it this way:
"Your edit will appear as an IP number - it may be attributed to 'anonymous_employee' or 'anonymous_contractor' or 'anonymous_contributor' for your privacy protection. You will not be notified of any answer or response to it. If you prefer to have this contribution credited, then [log in right now]."
That leaves it absolutely clear what will happen, doesn't pressure anyone to do it either way, and does not bias what is being contributed with some "rewards".
You can also, alternately, force a login via LDAP / cookies, and then ask them if they prefer this edit to be anonymous. That is the approach taken on some blog platforms. In an intranet the abuse potential for this is basically zero, so you would presumably only have situations where someone didn't want 'how they knew' or 'why they raised this' to be the question rather than the data itself... IBM has shown in some careful research that anonymized feedback is very much more useful than attributed in correcting groupthink & management blind sides.