Odd behavior
Permalink 1 user found helpful
While I am starting to get the feel for administering Concrete 5 there are still some "challenges".
Recently I had a user edit the page she has ownership of. I am not sure when, logically the last version she created, the ability for any user, even a superuser, to edit the page was "lost". Page and user settings seemed to be unchanged. As admin I was able to edit permissions in the Site Map etc.. I reverted to an older version which unfortunately lost all of her edits.
Is there something the user could have "gotten into" where she could have done this on her own? What do I need to block from view that I might have missed?
Any thoughts?
The one odd thing about the user is a mismatch between her website and Concrete 5 identities. She has a different user, hence "owner" ID on the page than what it is in the C5 Community.
Recently I had a user edit the page she has ownership of. I am not sure when, logically the last version she created, the ability for any user, even a superuser, to edit the page was "lost". Page and user settings seemed to be unchanged. As admin I was able to edit permissions in the Site Map etc.. I reverted to an older version which unfortunately lost all of her edits.
Is there something the user could have "gotten into" where she could have done this on her own? What do I need to block from view that I might have missed?
Any thoughts?
The one odd thing about the user is a mismatch between her website and Concrete 5 identities. She has a different user, hence "owner" ID on the page than what it is in the C5 Community.
Hi Adreco,
I suspect that your suggestion is more in line with what entil notes. Users on their pages can delete blocks...forcing me at time to add them back, until I have the look and the feel of pages just right. As it is most blocks a user deletes point to where they should be adding content. With a few "ooops" thrown in.
But the case in point involves pictures. I'd be curious to know what the "choke point" file size might be. People with a DSL and little real idea of how big a picture is in terms of "data size" are a common lot using the page.
I am using a free "Gallery" plug in, which allows persons to put "bigger" pictures up while allowing the look to be maintained with uniform thumbnails. The behavior was "B" to answer your question. In reverting to an earlier page prior to the user's adding images to the page it "came back." Interesting to know there is "choke point."
If a picture loads to slow, well, there are two solutions to that problem at least. I am trying to maintain "interface" load speed for users right now. Main splash image is too big I have it set to limit the size to 350 pixels in width and height. Makes for a nice splash without bleeding into the sides.
I recommend images that run around 200 KB or less. But as I noted I am working with a few persons who might find the review of metric prefixes informative but as adults I do not want to insult them either. I put plenty of "try this and it will work better" but as with a horse and water...
I suspect that your suggestion is more in line with what entil notes. Users on their pages can delete blocks...forcing me at time to add them back, until I have the look and the feel of pages just right. As it is most blocks a user deletes point to where they should be adding content. With a few "ooops" thrown in.
But the case in point involves pictures. I'd be curious to know what the "choke point" file size might be. People with a DSL and little real idea of how big a picture is in terms of "data size" are a common lot using the page.
I am using a free "Gallery" plug in, which allows persons to put "bigger" pictures up while allowing the look to be maintained with uniform thumbnails. The behavior was "B" to answer your question. In reverting to an earlier page prior to the user's adding images to the page it "came back." Interesting to know there is "choke point."
If a picture loads to slow, well, there are two solutions to that problem at least. I am trying to maintain "interface" load speed for users right now. Main splash image is too big I have it set to limit the size to 350 pixels in width and height. Makes for a nice splash without bleeding into the sides.
I recommend images that run around 200 KB or less. But as I noted I am working with a few persons who might find the review of metric prefixes informative but as adults I do not want to insult them either. I put plenty of "try this and it will work better" but as with a horse and water...
I'm working heavily with page and user permissions at the moment setting up a two part blog system. If I come across anything I'll post back here. Although, I'm guessing it most likely has to do with a block that was added to the page by the user. After you reverted page versions did the functionality come back again? If so, I would investigate what the user posted and maybe try to re-create it to figure out what it was and fix it!
On of these days I may allow other users to add blocks but for now I am using a "template" for each person. I copy the page and then do some simple customizing an give the member ownership of the page. This gives them the right to edit the content, and as I noted delete blocks, but the cannot add blocks to the page. That does have a drawback or two but for now is the lesser concern.
When you state the ability to edit was lost, do you mean:
A) the function itself quit working or
B) did the Edit Bar across the page top go blank?
I've seen "B" happen when an add-on generated a conflict. A picture too large for a gallery to handle or a gallery saved with no image associated with it can cause the edit bar to disappear ( oops... why yes, :) this is from personal experience )
The user names on a website typically have no association to the member name used for the Concrete5 community.
Hope this helps.
Adrian
Arvixe Web Hosting / Concrete5 Community Liaison |
http://www.arvixe.com/concrete5_hosting.............