Talk:Admin - Configuration - My Store
The missing page check option doesn't seem to jive with the default installed database. The value is set to true when the only available options should be On, Off or Page Not Found.
Thoughts? --Ron Seigel 00:56, 19 July 2006 (EDT)
This is an accurate observation. The code was adjusted in 1.3 to add the page-not-found option, and renamed available choices to On and Off. During this stage, the code also was made backwards-compatible to support the previous option of 'true' to be synonymous with "On". The default database setting for fresh installs has been adjusted for v1.4.
I just deleted what appeared to be someone spamming the wiki. --themacgeek 08:05, 20 May 2006 (EDT)
- yes good on you, but in the future don't just delete vandalism, restore the vandalised content. I just did. cheers Drstuey 07:03, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
- My apologies, I did not check the previous diff's, will do in the future.--themacgeek 07:06, 23 May 2006 (EDT)
I would find this page easier to understand and navigate in tabular format rather than a running list. Please post if anyone has any thoughts or comments regarding this. I will add this page to my list of future edits if there are no objections. --themacgeek 04:58, 13 May 2006 (EDT)
- I have four reasons why I think it should left as is...
- if you switch it to tabular display you would have to change them all...
- while tabular might be better for quick reference, I disagree it is better for learning and documenting. I think that the running list works best for providing longer descriptions of what each options means. A table tends to restrict the information to be short.
- editing a wiki table is intimidating for users who aren't happy with code (whether you use HTML or wiki syntax, when you press edit you are presented with something that is not as easy to read as running list format)
- running list format provides headers, and therefore easy anchors for referencing from other pages.
- Maybe the answer to making it more understandable is to group the options together like with like, rather than present them in the same order as the sorting of the admin menu. cheers, - Drstuey 06:43, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
- This makes complete sense to me. Will leave as is and contribute accordingly. Did not mean to throw a wrench in things. Maybe a quick reference guide would be an option once the primary info is fleshed out.
- --themacgeek 06:51, 15 May 2006 (EDT)
I'm not the least bit happy with this section (and all sections that will essentially look like this). One word - BORING! It really needs to be spiced up somehow. I thought about screen shots but I think this would be overkill (at least for the simple options - might work for more complicated things like attributes, specials, etc). Any ideas on design to liven this up a bit?
--APurpleMonkey.com 14:48, 13 December 2005 (MST)
One idea I have to add more detail to this is to link each option to the corresponding table entry (and vice-versa) but that still doesn't do much to liven it up.
--APurpleMonkey.com 14:50, 13 December 2005 (MST)
I think screenshots may be just the thing to spice it up. Overkill or not, images are good at spicing things up. :-) Linking to DB table entries is also a good idea IMO.
Dwno 14:59, 13 December 2005 (MST)
Show Category Counts question
Btw, why are there 2 "Show Category Counts" sections on this page? Intentional or not?
--Dwno 15:01, 13 December 2005 (MST)
There's a Show Category Counts (as in show them in the Categories box) and a Show Categories Count - Admin. No idea what the latter does (that's why it's marked with the Help icon).
--APurpleMonkey.com 15:06, 13 December 2005 (MST)
--APurpleMonkey.com 15:09, 13 December 2005 (MST)
Show Category counts
K, you know what it does in the category tree catalog side, The admin setting is pretty much the same, when you are viewing the category list in admin, you can either see the product count for that category or not.
The sql to do this is a big resource hog(as it relies on a recursive algorithm to get product counts for the current and child categories), although when we introduce (secret-new-feature) in 1.3.1 the sql query count will drop hugely
As for the boringness(just invented that word) of this page. K, yes it is a bit spartan, but never forget that any documentation is better than none.
Doing spiffy CSS/Ajax stuff is a slight possibilty (not sure how that would integrate into mediawiki) but for now, lets just get the basics in there, and worry about ergonomics later,
BTW keeep up the good work, you 2 are carrying this project at the moment :)
--Wilt 13:32, 14 December 2005 (MST)