This morning, (not for the first time), when viewing RAT, there were two "Notes", 805872 & 805873, which when I click those links display 'empty' nodes!

If I am considered too stupid, dangerous or fly-by-night to see the contents of these 'special nodes', is there any chance that the site could simply avoid bringing them to my attention, thereby avoiding raising my curiosity?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Hide restricted notes.
by Corion (Patriarch) on Nov 09, 2009 at 10:42 UTC

    The two nodes actually are empty, so there really is nothing to see there :).

[reply]

      Ah! I wonder how that happened? Still, even more reason not to show them on the RAT page perhaps.

      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
Re: Hide restricted notes.
by Bloodnok (Vicar) on Nov 09, 2009 at 13:04 UTC
    Of the 2, the latter is, IMHO, more 'interesting' since, when I click it, I get to the Super Search page !!

    A user level that continues to overstate my experience :-))
[reply]
      It worked this morning, then the page disappeared and now it's back in a different guise all very strange.
[reply]

        I find it hard to believe that the second link used to "work". But it will stop redirecting to Super Search at some point in the near future because fairly soon we'll have about 895k nodes here instead of about 805k. Of course, it still won't "work", because it still won't be linking to the correct, empty node (805873). (Or the second link might get replaced with one that "works".)

        - tye        

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion