Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 5
"... process your edit due to a loss of session data...." etc.

Does this also happen to my other fellow Foolish editors virtually whenever they edit?

If I'm not the only one that this is happening to, maybe we can look for a fix.

The good news is, simply resubmitting a second time always seems to work anyway. But this is not a "Don't Make Me Think!"* great Web experience. --David

*allusion to the Steve Krug book
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It does happens to me the first time (every time) I try an edit in a session, I just resubmit as you do and I don't get the error again.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey David -- Thanks for the heads up. This is happening because we have the wiki load balanced across two servers, and they sometimes don't talk to each other very well. Our guys are on it, and should have a fix by our next release in two weeks.

Jeremy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hi all,

This is happening because we have the wiki load balanced across two servers, and they sometimes don't talk to each other very well.

I've seen this happen with MediaWiki on a single server. Re-submitting immediately usually does the trick.

I think the real problem is likely a cookie being set by MediaWiki with a shorter-than-realistic expiration. I mostly see this when I'm editing something, then go off and do something else for more than 5-10 minutes, then come back and try to submit the content.

Just my $.02 (adjust downwards appropriately for recent deflationary/market trends :)


Paul
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Re-submitting immediately usually does the trick.

I just tried adding an acronym to that page, and I got the error message. So I logged out, came back in, and tried it again. Still got the error message.

I came here to see what others might be saying about it (very helpful!), I tried editing, then just hit "save" twice without doing anything else, and voila!, it worked.

On a side note, I really think we might want to consider restructuring the A-Z list of terms for looking something up. I had a heck of a time finding "acronyms" on the list. At one point, I had myself convinced that I had dreamed that we had a page with that name -- even though I've been the main editor on it! I started to wonder what else we might have called it.

Now, I recently had anesthesia, so my brain isn't functioning up to speed yet, but I have never really liked the left-to-right reading across the columns. I think visually it might be better to have the alpha listing within each column (i.e., reading top to bottom in column 1, then jump to top of column 2 and start again, and so on and so on), because then it is obvious that the alpha listing is in that order. And my eyes seem to follow it better that way. With the list as it is, my eyes tend to cross before I find my entry. Hence (with crossed eyes) my difficulty finding "acronyms." (And I didn't start out by typing that in the "start" field. I was going to do that, but I found it just before going up to do so.)

ALSO: I thought at one point we had a list of separate letters of the alphabet at the top of the page to narrow the search. Or am I just thinking of other pages that I have encountered on other websites like that? I think it would be helpful to only look at the listing for a particular letter -- again, helps with the eyes-crossing thing to not have so many terms listed continuously on one page.

I know we can narrow it down by starting with a particular term, but you still get the run-on of everything that comes after. And having more than one search option would seem to make it more user-friendly and intuitive -- letting folks search in the manner which works best for them. Multiple search options would make everybody happy, I would think, rather than forcing them into one single way to do so.

Just a thought.

Best regards,
Kathie
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement