Forums: Index > Watercooler > Familypedians: Can we reach 36,000 ARTICLES by 30 June 2009?

I think, we must not publish this above our pages ! It looks like we prefer quantity above quality. Better, if we have to publish a challenge, ask ourselves, can we remove the bug by saving info pages so that we don't have to save twice, or, can we make the saving faster, so that we don't need to wait 30 to 120 second before we can proceed. And I think there are a lot of improvement to reach, at least we are young and building as site !Fred Bergman 13:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear!
The display of the info page is not a bug, by the way. The display necessarily takes its info from data available, and the data is not available before it is saved. rtol 14:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but why do we have to save twice ! One save should be sufficient ! Fred Bergman 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Refresh" button works for me. Thurstan 22:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to know the technical reason Fred, it is because we save our data in a form that makes it easy to change in one place so that everyone gets the benefit of the change in all articles. The data sharing introduces this delay. Changes would be immediate if we stored copies of everything everywhere as most wikis do it. Some sites add a database to a wiki in order to share data, but there is limited communication between the database and the wiki. Our site is fully integrated, so that for example we can do things like autocomplete a form with cities just in South Holland, and can query for wikia articles based on all data entered. Both the old way of sharing this information (info pages) and the new way using Semantic Mediawiki will continue to required this double saving in many cases. Happily, this will not be necessary for some of the new SMW pages, but I have not yet figured out a way to do this for person pages and also do the other things we want. So for the meantime we still will need to hit the purge cache button after saving. The basic problem is that it's like a bank where you simultaneously are asking for your current balance at the very instant you are also depositing some money. The teller first tells you your current balance and then deposits the money. You then have to have the teller what your new balance is.
I realize this is an annoying detail for contributors and am actively investigating ways of eliminating this. -~ Phlox 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation Fred Bergman 06:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)