QB64 Community

General => QB64 Discussion => Topic started by: Billbo on April 08, 2013, 04:46:11 PM

Title: Site rating
Post by: Billbo on April 08, 2013, 04:46:11 PM
Hi,

GarryRicketson over at qb64offtopic.freeforums.org post a link to:

  http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecord

The site rates sites in four areas, e.g. our rating:

  Trustworthiness        98%
  Vendor reliability        98%
  Privacy                      98%
  Child Safety               97%

It's mainly to check out sites before you join their forum.

There's a window to the upper right. Type in the sites name
there, e.g. qb64.net.

Bill
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: fluffrabbit on April 08, 2013, 05:02:48 PM
children
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 08, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Hi all,
    Its nice to see QB64 with such high ratings Bill.
    fluffrabbit could you edit out the profanity please , as we encourage kids to participate here on this site.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: TerryRitchie on April 08, 2013, 05:57:39 PM
Fluff, students visit this site. Please edit your post and remove the vulgar words.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: fluffrabbit on April 08, 2013, 06:05:54 PM
Quote from: TerryRitchie on April 08, 2013, 05:57:39 PM
Fluff, students visit this site. Please edit your post and remove the vulgar words.
Elementary students, perhaps.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: LINUXQB64gltester on April 08, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: Billbo on April 08, 2013, 04:46:11 PM
Hi,

GarryRicketson over at qb64offtopic.freeforums.org post a link to:

  http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecord

The site rates sites in four areas, e.g. our rating:

  Trustworthiness        98%
  Vendor reliability        98%
  Privacy                      98%
  Child Safety               97%

It's mainly to check out sites before you join their forum.

There's a window to the upper right. Type in the sites name
there, e.g. qb64.net.

Bill
That is good, the good rating, it would be nice to keep it that way to, all though it appears someone would rather see a bad rating,   I usually can't see his posts, he has been on my ignore lists  ever since he first joined, however, I had  not yet logged in, and saw it as a guest. Hopefully action is taken by Galleon, or Pete. Everybody, please, it would be better just to report posts like that, let Galleon or Pete take care of it.
 Thanks from Garry
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: DSMan195276 on April 08, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
While I don't really want to derail this topic, there isn't any sort of rules for the Discussion section (Or any section besides the Beginners section for that matter). I believe a while back it was agreed that profanity on the forum shouldn't be allowed anymore specifically because a fair amount of younger kids can/may come on here (QBasic, and by that virtue QB64, are easy languages for younger kids to pick up the basics of.). No formal rules to that natures have been put out though. And perhaps now would be a good time to at least put out a basic 'Forum Rules' sticky topic, even if it says nothing more then 'Don't swear please'. It's not really fair blame Fluffrabbit if we just expect people to figure out all of our unwritten rules.

And with that, I'm glad to see a site rating like that up, though honestly I've never really put a ton of faith into services like that. It more matters what you specifically feel rather then the view of one rating site. As some may be more inclined not to join a forum if they see lots of swearing, I probably wouldn't join a forum if the main thing discussed were just religion bashing topics. And of course it can definitely flip the other way depending on what you're looking for and what the target audience is. As for QB64's target audience, while it's arguably beginning programmers, that's probably limiting the audience, and either way it's not a call any of us could make.

Matt
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 08, 2013, 09:53:00 PM
I'd like to see qb64 do more to attract young people.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 09, 2013, 03:55:09 AM
Hi all,
    Im not blaming fluffy. I read his post as sarcastic humour , however one word in particular was very inappropriate. To his credit it did remove it and for that i thank him.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Barrykgerdes on April 09, 2013, 02:53:57 PM
I tried that link but it was "not found"

As for language problems I don't expect the younger generation regard those profanities in the same vein as us oldies. Ethics and respect disappeared with the permissve societies 50 years ago.

Barry
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Galleon on April 09, 2013, 07:38:36 PM
Thanks for taking the initiative to change your comment fluffrabbit.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 10:15:13 AM
OK, now we have that out of the way, can we please try to turn this discussion more positively.

May I suggest discussing the claim "A site is good depending on how useful and creative it is in showing how its computing procedures can solve interesting and diverse applications".
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Billbo on April 10, 2013, 10:28:05 AM
Mrwhy,

I say that it is done at this site to a very large extent. And,
of coarse, it's a damn good site!!!

Bill
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 10:45:45 AM
So wouldn't it be even better if there were some way to list these useful and creative posts and contact the people who wrote them.
We have the Wiki for keyword grammar and syntax
But qb64 is more than mere code.
How about a way to help a person trying to do new and interesting applications
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 10, 2013, 11:03:21 AM
Hi all,
    Seems like a good suggestion until you look into how much work it is for someone to do. Reading through all the posted programs and then understanding them and categorizing them into a type of database so that a researcher doesn't have to do that themselves.
     What each researcher is seeking may be different to your's or mine's interpretation of what goes into a database.
Quote
But qb64 is more than mere code.
How about a way to help a person trying to do new and interesting applications
    That comes down to the individual. I suppose they should at first try and then ask. Once they have the conventional understanding of how others have done it before they have come along then they can experiment on different ways to do it. Knowledge is learn through a process. You may grasp how some one else's method tackled the problem and brought about a solution but is that enough to truely understand? I think not. There is no shortcut to knowledge , it has to be learnt. One of the constraints is that one must fully understand the basics to grasp and demonstrate the ability to use advanced methods that rely on understanding the basics.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 11:20:28 AM
Very interesting Oldos
There seem to be contrasting types of people
Some try to grasp all the details first (all the coding tricks), then apply them
I have never been able to do that
In my case I have an application I want to simulate using QB64
I have my own 50 year backlog of tasks I have simulated in qbasics. This began as trial and error but by now is a bit more structured.
What I would greatly value from this forum is the chance to increase in scope and width this list of "how to simulate what" using QB64.
Such as a candle flame.
I think in any such one case all it takes is someone to look up "flame" in our "search" and list it under "f".
Similarly he who seeks round circles not ellipses would find some hope under "r" for round!
At present he who attempts this can find nowhere on our site to put his results
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 10, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Hi all,
   
Quote
Some try to grasp all the details first (all the coding tricks), then apply them
There are very few coding tricks , mostly they are understandings.
Quote
I think in any such one case all it takes is someone to look up "flame" in our "search" and list it under "f".
Similarly he who seeks round circles not ellipses would find some hope under "r" for round!
    In an ideal world thats probably how it would be. Different authors use different syntax to describe there work and your interpretation of "correct" searching parameters may not work. One way that will work is to manually search through posts page by page and decide for yourself if it fits into your parameters. I dont know of any sites that offer the level of searching that you desire other than google. Even then you have to sort out hundreds of links that arent relevant. Thats just the way it is , unless you code a newer search engine that can discern the meanings you type in as your parameters and understand your context to look for.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 11:42:35 AM
It is not quite as difficult as you think, Oldos.
He who wants to draw a flame on screen looks under "f"
If his word is not flame, he will be lucky if he finds it under "f".
All we seek, as always, is how to BEGIN.
Here we begin by helping those who want a flame.
At least then we have started and helped someone!
At present there is no help at all (except to post and ask others to kindly help ;D)

Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 10, 2013, 11:47:58 AM
Hi all,
   
Quote
It is not quite as difficult as you think, Oldos.
Well you havent found it onsite. I did a quick google search with this heading: "simulate a flame mathematically" and got pages of links to other sites.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 11:58:32 AM
Many thanks Oldos
Yes, qb64 is just one site that I consult.
It is best only when I happen to know the keywords.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Billbo on April 10, 2013, 03:24:35 PM
OlDosLover & Mrwhy,

I just did a site (ours) search for just the word "flame." Wouldn't
you think that out of the few thousand topics and 10's of
thousands of replies, that it ought to show up more than in 4
replies. And that's only in this "Site rating" topic.

Bill
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: LINUXQB64gltester on April 10, 2013, 05:43:54 PM

Quote
I just did a site (ours) search for just the word "flame." 
  Actually there are a lot of references,..


 FLAME  (http://www.qb64.net/forum/index.php?action=search2;params=eJwtzUEOwjAMRNG7sGEzC-LSUk4TpY5RQWmD3ABCyuFxUHffTxo5xHdYWWI91lM91ElbUYcrCD1oBF1AA4jQgXq4Ee4MZzHAORtsc_54zsszSRGbNnpND-Hi85q-u2QtVipJ_t928vGuxlE2biJBebb7lsIiP1zWND4.)
 If you are currently in a certain topic/or category, the search only shows, what is in that topic (thread), What you need to do, is exit the topic/category, to  "QB64 community", then do the search from there, it will then show the results, for all the topics, and categories that contain posts with that word.
  Search engines, are limited, but they are very useful, it dose take getting familiar with , them,
 If you just use a letter, the one here at qb64 (SMF), will reject it, it must be more then 2 letters, the thing is one letter, would return 1,000,000 s of results,..  Google will give a lot of results, with even just one letter, but chances of any of them being usefull, is very slim. The main thing with useing a search program, is to try to be specific, and use specific word groups,.. IE: on google, "flame" would still get 1,000,s of results,..  you would need to be more specific,.. "how to draw a flame",
 "animated flames", depending on what you want,.."starting flames" would probabley get a lot on starting fires, or also, "flame" has been used as a term on the internet, related to when people, try to start trouble,..  "draw a flame mathmatically " or "draw a flame with math"  spelling is important, but I don't know the correct spelling, for mathmaticaly , sometimes "google" will suggest different spellings,  I would look for "animated flames", if I want to get one that actually flickers,...
 Doing one with qb64 would be easy, but tedious,  you could draw several frames, of "flames" bigger and littler, etc, put them on a "sprite sheet",.. and then use the code to run the "animation",..
 To do that with math, or the DRAW command, would be possible, I am sure, the wiki would say how, to use the DRAW command, also you could do it with DATA files,.. too.
 As a matter of fact  THE-BOB, did a real neat one , with a fireplace as the background,..  I think it is in his tutoial, but it is qbasics, and qb4.5  I don't think I have ever tried compiling it with qb64, but I am sure it would.

 Ahh, one last note: Also, thank you fuffrabit, for editing the post.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: SMcNeill on April 10, 2013, 06:18:52 PM
And of course, simulated candle flames may not show up on any search engine because the original poster didn't use the term "flame".   They could call their sample, "burning candle", "wavering candle wick", "wind effect on a fire simulation", "candle vs draft", "lit wick"....  Or even "Check this out!"

The only way to make certain that a search returns what you're looking for is to set a group of keywords, and then require everyone to use those specific words.  "Burning candle" would be rejected, but "Simulation - Fire, candle" might pass and then everyone would be able to title tag properly so that searches could find the relevant information.

But who's going to create the keyword list?  Enforce it?  Make certain everyone abides by it?

All I know is its not a job for me.  ;)
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Billbo on April 10, 2013, 06:38:42 PM
LINUXQB64gltester,

To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. No wonder I haven't been able to find
a lot of things. I did as you indicated and it came up with close to 50. Daahhh!!!

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: OlDosLover on April 10, 2013, 10:03:47 PM
Hi all,
    That sort of "tip" should be in the FAQ , i think.
OlDosLover.
Title: Re: Site rating
Post by: Mrwhy on April 10, 2013, 11:29:26 PM
The above several replies are very interesting in they mention what matters yet manage to miss the important facts.
As Billbo so wisely points out "I just did a site (ours) search for just the word "flame." Wouldn't you think that out of the few thousand topics and 10's of thousands of replies, that it ought to show up more than in 4 replies. And that's only in this "Site rating" topic."

That is the problem in a nutshell: finding "the few" among the "tens of thousands"!
The needle we seek is an EXAMPLE of a flame program hidden in the haystack of irrelevant thread contributions.
To be positive, what we really need is a way to AUTOMATE the display onscreen of only the posts that DO CONTAIN
Code: [Select]
For THOSE are the posts that actually DO give examples of programs ???

Please help me by suggesting a way I could search all of our site yet see onscreen in turn only the posts that contain [code]. If I could do that within qb64 I'd have a go at making an index of example programs already posted here.