Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

As a last resort, I tried uploading new imagess to the /membergraphics/MSdaiseireigi directory while replacing the old images, and that did not work.

According to a new calendar I have, this is National Hobby Month and International Creativity Month, which together make it a good time to be into Chess variants.

The File Manager is still broken. Bob Greenwade and I cannot delete or upload images.

Ah OK. I was facing a similar issue, I have been trying and trying again to upload images for half an hour!!!

Ah OK. I was facing a similar issue, I have been trying and trying again to upload images for half an hour!!!

I've been at it for about 4 days.

As a test, I tried to delete wfd.png with the rm command while signed in to the shell as root, and it worked. As a further test, I signed in as chessvariants and used rm to remove bfd.png, and that also worked. Since managefiles.php was last updated on November 20, and problems with it seem to be more recent, I'm assuming I did not introduce a bug into the code. But since it continues to be a problem, I will look into it further today.

As a further test, I downloaded the cached versions of wfd.png and bfd.png to my computer, then I tried to use the file manager to upload bfd.png to the MSdaiseireigi folder. This failed. I then tried to use the file manager to upload it to MSfpdtest, and this worked. Since both have the same owner, I figure that is not the problem. But MSdaiseireigi had write permissions only for the owner, and MSfpdtest had full write permissions. When I changed the permissions for MSdaiseireigi, I was able to upload both bfd.png and wfd.png, and I was also able to delete them with the file manager. I used chmod to change the permissions of every folder in membergraphics to 777, and I used chown to change the owner and group of each one to chessvariants. Hopefully, this fixes things.

Hopefully, this fixes things.

It appears to have done so. Many thanks!

(Now once I get a few items published, I can get back to work on my ideas....) :)

Looks like it works now. I uploaded this one

Is anyone else experienceing an HTTP Error 500 when they go to the File Manager? I am currently experiencing one whenever I go to the File Manager for one of my pages (Ex. https://www.chessvariants.com/index/managefiles.php?itemid=MSdaiseireigi).

The 500 error is indicating a problem with the server or the website's programming.

It should work now. I had added an extra line after an if statement, not realizing it was for only one line. I have now added braces around the two lines following the if statement, and it is working again.

Thanks. Now I can finally finish updating Dai Seireigi and its preset. Better late than never.

@Fergus

I have updated set files for the Seireigi graphics. Unless I made a mistake in the sets, this should be the final update, as Dai Seireigi is no longer in flux (though it still needs updated, which I will take care of soon).

https://www.chessvariants.com/membergraphics/MSchuseireigi/seireigi-set-files-final.zip

Okay, I unzipped them to the sets directory.

I have a graphic piece set Joyful for small cells, you can find it in my user directory. They’re small. I made them for custom grids (e. g. Crazy 38’s and Rocket Chess). Can you write them to graphics, please?

@Fergus,

When finalizing Dai Seireigi, I renamed one of the pieces and changed its ID to match. Here are the updated set files that reflect this change.

https://www.chessvariants.com/membergraphics/MSchuseireigi/seireigi-set-files-final-corrected-final.zip

Okay, I've now unzipped it.

Because having only a few editors does not scale well to having several eager contributors, I am thinking of changes I can make to the submission system that would allow for unlimited works in progress and a peer review process that could lead to publication without waiting for an editor to approve of a page.

I'm thinking of allowing submissions in multiple stages.

1. Member-contributed page would begin as works in progress. A work in progress would not be listed on the page for unreviewed submissions, changes to it would not generate notifications, and it could be seen only by the author and the editors. Works in progress could remain unlimited unless they started to take up too much memory. Perhaps I would also automatically delete revisions older than the last one, which would keep memory use down at the time when authors are most likely to be making multiple revisions.
2. When an author decides that a page is ready for review, he would submit it for approval. This would move it from being a work in progress to being a submission. As such, all members would now be able to read it. Submissions would remain limited in number like they are now. Also, editors and authors could revert a submission back to being a work in progress.
3. A submission could be approved for publication by either an editor approving it or by multiple members voting to approve it. Votes from contributors would count for two, votes from other members would count as one, and three would be required. (As a precaution against the same person using multiple accounts, voters would have to have different IP addresses from each other and the author.) On acquiring the required number of votes, a script could publish it and leave a notification for editors to check that nothing is amiss. Once published, a page would be viewable and searchable by anyone.

New Aeon is started here…

I strongly support this plan, Fergus -- especially Stages 1 and 2 (which is exactly what I've been hoping for, though I don't remember how much of it I actually wrote out here).

Dear Fergus

I do approve as well. You are right, it becomes really necessary, the current situation is not suitable. The #1 and #2 are quite good. The #3 is worth a try. Maybe I would add that the voice of an editor is worth a 3, which is equivalent to the actual system. I realize that it is maybe implicit in your proposal.

Maybe, you could have also a prudent #4 that allows an editor to revert a submission that would have been approved by NON-editors, if the submission happens to get strong protest(s) afterwards. Just for security.

I think it could be good for the publication process, except I doubt that regular members or novice inventors (like myself) should have a voting right on submissions. I think it would be better to save the voting right (or duty) for the senior members of the community - they have a better understanding of the chess variation subject, experience in writing (and reading) good submissions and, what is also important - have seen a lot of variants and could easily spot repetitions or occasional plagiarisms.

It would be on a voluntary basis. So, those who don't consider themselves qualified could decline to participate. Recognized contributors would get more of a vote than other members, because it is expected that they would have more expertise. However, expertise in a field in which no one has a degree can be hard to quantify. So, I'm mostly leaving it up to members to gauge their own expertise. If we start to see too much of a Dunning-Kruger effect in members who are participating, then we can reevaluate how we should be doing this. Also, there are areas where expertise is not as important. You don't have to know a lot about other Chess variants to tell whether you find a game interesting or whether you can understand the rules. But it will help to be detail-oriented and analytical.

You don't have to know a lot about other Chess variants to tell whether you find a game interesting or whether you can understand the rules.

I'd even suggest that, for the latter, having less expertise is helpful.