Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

I'm sorry, there seems to be a problem with the Editor Tools module. It create an error message in the error log each time a message is loaded... say 15 messages on a page, 90,000 page views a day = 1,350,000 error messages written in the error log every day. That gets so big the site falls over and stops working. I don't know how to fix it and until I do then I'm afraid the Editor Tools says off the site for the good of the whole site.


Apologies for the inconvenience.

Administrator Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> 1,350,000 error messages written in the error log

> every day.


xxxxxxx


What a nightmare!


That's put my computer problems into perspective!


ETA: Might somebody on here know how to sort it for you? There seem to be quite a few techies who post.

> "Fixing 400 errors - general"


But that's about client problems, not servers. I'm a bit surprised that you're getting an Editor Tools error report for every "message ... loaded", whatever that means. But that's said in ignorance of the system architecture. But if they are there, they might be due to a simple configuration setting error, such as a wrong path name. Wasn't the last recent glitch a configuration one? I can't remember now.


More of help, I think, would be a sample of the error reports; they could at least lead to the location in the open source code where the problem's showing itself, and possibly indicate relevant paths.


If the problem's only been around since the latest boot, it might be worth trying a shutdown and cold restart at some quiet time.


There might possibly be other quick and dirty fixes for the volume of error reports, if necessary. They boil down to ways of doing away with the error log.

In the meantime you can still insert the BBCode tags, which is what the Editor Tools create, yourself.


There are some examples here, bbcode.org examples page, and you can check your code in Preview before posting.


Sue, that's the basic message parser. If I type just http:// it treats it as ordinary text; but if I add owt, the string gets treated as if an URL and so appears as http://owt.

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Sue, that's the basic message parser. If I type

> just http:// it treats it as ordinary text; but if

> I add owt, the string gets treated as if an URL

> and so appears as http://owt.


xxxxxx


The owt being the rest of the address ie something ending in eg .com ????

  • Administrator

Hi, I'll answer the techie posts when I have more time but Alan, if a business complains and requests a removal then I more than likely will. It's their business and I don't want the forum ruining local businesses because of some libellous comments.


There's loads that goes on behind the scenes here, only today I had a Herne Hill taxi company tell me I removed their advert because they're Asian. I told them to go stick their accusations somewhere but also to read the rules that say you have to be an East Dulwich business to advertise.

  • 1 month later...
I've just been unable to upload a .doc file as an attachment. The system reported that it was not of an accepted file type, and that only .jpg and .png files could be uploaded. I'm not sure whether this is a system change or a consequence of its glitchy state. In this particular case it doesn't really matter; I simply copied and pasted the contents.
  • 3 weeks later...

Can we have a "hall of fame" section? You could populate it with classic threads that have run their course and then lock them to allow everyone to enjoy them whenever they want.


Start it off with the Begging Bowl thread (why did that have to go? that was gold!) along with the discussion about puppies being sold and personal shopping.


It could also be useful to reference to classic subjects e.g. CPZ, M&S/Waitrose etc.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...