| Revision as of 19:44, 18 August 2020 editMatthiaspaul (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors137,490 edits →Indexing does not seem to work correctly...: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:08, 18 August 2020 edit undoNaomiAmethyst (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors6,269 edits →Indexing does not seem to work correctly...: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| Thanks and greetings, --] (]) 19:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | Thanks and greetings, --] (]) 19:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | ||
| :Don't use underscores in the archiveprefix. That will fix the indexing issue. As far as incoming links, ultimately CB3 has to fetch each one to check if the incoming link was to a section, and if that section was one that it just archived. It's not that it necessarily has a problem with large numbers, but more that it will take a significant amount of time to check larger incoming links, at some threshold delaying the next archival run. The original problem was ] with some 700k+ incoming links. -- ]<sup>(]|]|])</sup> 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:08, 18 August 2020
| Skip to table of contents |
False positives and false negativesIf you believe that ClueBot NG has mistakenly identified a good edit as vandalism, please follow the directions in the warning it gave or click here. Please do not report it on this talk page. It takes less time to report the case to the correct location, and we can handle it more effectively there.If you believe that ClueBot NG has missed an edit that is vandalism, again do not report it here. ClueBot is unable to catch all vandalism. Just revert the edit and warn the editor. ClueBot NG Links!Report False Positives • Frequently Asked Questions Purpose of this PageThis page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots.
The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Running
Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots' owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.
| ClueBots | |
|---|---|
| ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script |  |
| ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks for reverting vandalism Anilgaming2007 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC) |
What happened/What did I do?
Please see User talk:Danre98 and the archive box on the right. I think it's kinda funny but I'd like the listing of random pages gone. --Danre98 21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind.--Danre98 02:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:HamlingBline
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User talk:HamlingBline, to Misplaced Pages. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Indexing does not seem to work correctly...
Hi Cobi. Yesterday, I enabled CB3 on a page with <2500 incoming links (), which I do not consider a particularly large number of incoming links by Misplaced Pages standards. Hopefully, this isn't too high for CB3 to cope with, otherwise, please let me know. Today, it started to archive some threads. While the archive page it created is fine, I don't think the index it created is correct (, ) - but perhaps I just have a wrong idea about what should be the contents of the index. I think I could manually fix the first index, but I have no idea what to do with the second one... Revert, blank the page? Please advise.
Some remarks:
- It might be useful for editors if CB3's documentation would specify the maximum number of incoming links more precisely than "large", because this means a lot of different things to different people.
- Is it possible to apply CB3's archive link fixing to older archive pages as well? It wouldn't need to be fast. I'm sure it would not be possible for links to threads with identical section headers without taking the edit history into account as well, but even if only those links where fixed up which can be reliably fixed up, this would already be an improvement over no fixed up links at all.
- In many cases, there is a limited number of other pages (related talk pages) which benefit from fast link fixes, while for other (only remotely related) pages, it does not matter much if the links get updated within minutes or days (or at all). So, for pages with a really high number of incoming links, it would be nice, if it would be possible to define a list of pages (including subpages/wildcards) which will be processed first.
Thanks and greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Don't use underscores in the archiveprefix. That will fix the indexing issue. As far as incoming links, ultimately CB3 has to fetch each one to check if the incoming link was to a section, and if that section was one that it just archived. It's not that it necessarily has a problem with large numbers, but more that it will take a significant amount of time to check larger incoming links, at some threshold delaying the next archival run. The original problem was BLP/N with some 700k+ incoming links. -- Cobi 20:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)