Re: planet "top posters" section - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Subject | Re: planet "top posters" section |
Date | |
Msg-id | o2m9837222c1004190121v7182df53x92197f58190e3b1@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | planet "top posters" section (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: planet "top posters" section
Re: planet "top posters" section |
List | pgsql-www |
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:29, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Robert Treat >>> <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>> Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than >>>> any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and >>>> with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho. >>> >>> That'd be fine with me, too, as would any of the other suggestions so >>> far offered. >> >> I disagree - I like the teams feature. >> >> How about just listing top posters and top teams separately, and not >> including the people under each team. Maybe something like >> >> Top posters >> ----------------- >> >> Robert Treat (OmniTI) - 5 >> Andreas Scherbaum - 5 >> Magnus Hagander - 4 >> Dave Page (EnterpriseDB) -2 >> Bruce Momjian (EnterpriseDB) - 2 >> >> Top teams >> ---------------- >> >> OmniTI - 5 >> EnterpriseDB - 4 > > This is the best idea I've seen so far, I think. > > >> My only concern with that is that the poster names could become quite long. > > Yeah. We could limit the length of the name, I guess - but most are > short already. CommandPrompt is the longest, and that's not really > long. (It doesn't say "CommandPrompt, Inc" for example, which would've > been easily shortened). > > I whipped up a quick test (the first part, which is adding the teams > to the top listing, is trivial. The second one will require the > reqwrite of a query :P). Here's how it looks for me (attached). > > What we could do if we want this is either increase the width of the > right column (it's fixed at 250px now, with the contents column > scaling up in size to whatever the browser window has), or we could > decrease the font size. Thoughts? > > (Interestingly enough, the last decision made around changes here was > IIRC to allow "aliases" in the names of blogs, which helped break the > display :P But that's already broken on what we have now, with depesz > name being so long it always linebreaks. But this makes it even more > obvious.) Meh, posting denied due to size of attachment. Here's an URL for the attachment instead: http://www.hagander.net/tmp/20100419-102046-3421.png -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/