Does anyone know what this ATS error means?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Now I need to waste time digging into which post is the problem because members are too lazy to limit their quoting. (which sounds like the problem)

Welcome back SO.

Did you see my post above.

... and perhaps you missed this by Springer? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Members are just following instructions in that thread.

Maybe you can let us know what the maximum quote size is to avoid the problem?
.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread has a very high quote count.

Originally posted by Gools
Members are just following instructions in that thread.

I didn't see anything in Springer's post that relaxed the limitation on snippets-and-links when dealing with content from other sites. This is a long-standing ATS posting requirement.

The issue was not the quoting of other posts (sorry), but massive amounts of text copied from multiple sources and placed into a single post. One post had over 20,000 characters.

Look, again. I'm sorry. I was only following instructions...

Hopefully this will help:

The problem occurred when I submitted the post entitled "Saturday, September 03, 2005" After hitting the post button, it just hung there for a long time. Later when I came back to check, I couldn't access page 6. Prior to that I could see the page fine, including the posts you deleted.

Again, sorry. But was simply following instructions. I spent hours of work on that project and would do nothing to damage this board.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I didn't see anything in Springer's post that relaxed the limitation on snippets-and-links when dealing with content from other sites. This is a long-standing ATS posting requirement.

Fair enough. Just a misunderstanding I guess.

The issue was ... but massive amounts of text copied from multiple sources and placed into a single post.

I'm not too good on the technical stuff, does this mean one post for each link provided then?
.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Gools
Members are just following instructions in that thread.

I didn't see anything in Springer's post that relaxed the limitation on snippets-and-links when dealing with content from other sites. This is a long-standing ATS posting requirement.

The issue was not the quoting of other posts (sorry), but massive amounts of text copied from multiple sources and placed into a single post. One post had over 20,000 characters.

These were Valhall's instructions:

"Please post all links and quotes here. Unlike every day business, it would probably be wise to get ALL relevant sections of an article. That would be much larger sections quoted from the article than normal, but what we're trying to do is preserve the important parts in case the articles start getting changed or removed. "

Moreover, ALL of those articles were from the SAME news source, nola_Times-Picayune...with authors duly noted....

loam, It’s kinda pointless to argue any further IMO. We have our marching orders right from the top of the ATS pyramid. From this point forward just follow SkepticOverlord’s instructions when posting and all will be well.

KEEP ON KEEPIN' ON...

loam

I wasn't aware of this technical reason for the rule and I'm sure Val wasn't aware of it when making her request.

Wear the badge with honour, you helped Deny Ignorance!
.

I'm not too good on the technical stuff, does this mean one post for each link provided then?
.

The site shouldn't have any problems if all the quotes are in seperate posts and the posts aren't to long.(dunno exactly what the character count per post is on here)

As SO said, quoting that much material from other sites(mainly news sites) might bring other problems with it, copyright problems. But I think you can bypass that problem by putting all the quotes in textfiles that can be downloaded from a personal webspace and not ATS, that way ATS is not at risk and normaly the only risk your in will be that you might be asked to take the text files offline(this doesn't mean however that you have to delete them, so you can keep them for yourself still)

Let's see....

I got called directly or indirectly "ridiculous", "stupid" and "too lazy".....

I got a WARN...

I lost 5 or 6 hours of work because it was simply deleted......

I got accused of posting massive amounts of text copied from multiple sources and placed into a single post, when in fact all those came from the same source (NO Times-Picayune)...and each article I selected appeared with the appropriate link and citation...and complied with a moderator's (Valhall) explicit instructions...

I read how important this was to staff and how they were watching this closely....

And, now I'm expected to know that SO is the top of the pyramid and trumps the express instructions of a MOD and the implicit one's of the ATS staff???

This research project was important to me, and so was my experience on this site....

I certainly have had the wind taken out of my sails on this one...

I would have preferred to have been treated with a little more respect. I did nothing intentionally wrong and have never done so on this site.

I guess I invested my time unwisely. SO is entitled to run his site the way he wishes....

This is all very disappointing to me and takes the shine off of the way I thought about ATS and this board....

EDIT: Just to be clear....I feel badly that this caused so many problems, in addition to how badly I feel I was treated...

[edit on 5-9-2005 by loam]

I'm sorry you feel that way, really.

I expected to just check up on things after lunch and get back outside to a really nice late summer day.

Instead I find the database server in near shambles with over 100 open queries attempting to complete (and the entire site running slow).

When I discover that this is because of careless posting, of course I'm going to be rather frustrated and grouchy.

Yes, we've had previous problems with lazy posters quoting large posts that also have quotes... creating not only an aesthetic problem, but a performance problem. While you were in the cross-hairs from some previous comments as I quickly scanned the thread looking for clues, the comment about "lazy posters" was me venting frustration.

But from a common sense standpoint, when Valhall and Springer clarified some points, I don't think anyone expected such gigantic posts. Three of your posts were so large, I couldn't edit them normally, I had to write a special query to modify the reduce the content so they could be removed.

Then the database required about 50 minutes of repair to correct corrupt tables. (When you created this thread, many more people when to see what you were talking about, thereby compounding the situation into a waterfall of database errors.) Had we been on our previous server, we'd likely not be back up until mid-day tomorrow (we now have a dedicated database server).

And really, if you're having trouble creating an unbearably large post, it stands to reason that that very same unbearably large post will cause problems on the site for everyone.

I'm sorry you felt "whompped on", but now at least you can understand what happened, and how it inspired my gruff tone.

Fair enough, SO, though I have to admit I still feel a bit bruised on this one...

I re-read this thread and didn't even realize until now that I had been given 5000 points by Springer for my submissions, in addition to your WARN...I guess that is proof positive that all of this was a BIG misunderstanding the whole way around....

I suppose, at least, I hold the distinction of having received my very first WARN from "the very top". (loam bows here)

I've never been one to take short-cuts, (unless, I'm driving), so when I screw up, it remains consistent that I should do so in a big way...

I'm over it... Sorry again for the problems this caused....

And, Springer, thanks for the recognition.

EDITED from..."raped"...to..."ruffled"...to..."bruised"...proving once again that time heals all wounds.....

[edit on 5-9-2005 by loam]

2nd EDIT: It appears I missed that it was Springer that gave me the recognition. Don't where I got "Advisor" from...Anyway, if an "Advisor" exists, I'm quite sure he took the middle ground between SO and Springer and appropriately ignored this entire thread....



[edit on 5-9-2005 by loam]