WPIntell

Source evidence

[Plugin: Display Name Author Permalink] Plugin Improvements

Display Name Author Permalink · support · 2012-06-28T16:20:00+00:00

Display Name Author Permalink plugin evidence original source source API
complaintsentiment
mediumseverity
0.74relevance
2replies
Evidence linked to opportunitycommercial context

Proof Health

Open evidence

Commercial opportunities need traceable source links before they are treated as build-worthy.

2 / 25 rows with source links

8.0% of this page's analysis has direct source links.

0 build-decision rows missing links

0 rows here require auditable proof before promotion.

23 rows with no attached evidence

0 rows have source counts but still need direct links.

Conversation

support
Kevin Leary unresolved
I love this plugin, thanks for taking the time to put it together. I’ve just deployed it for use here, with a few improvements I thought you guys might be interested in: http://blog.openviewpartners.com/ The updates I’ve made include: Removed deprecated functions Updated the redirect_404() function to instead redirect to the new URL – This was very important to us for usability and SEO If you’re interested in checking out the updates I’ve posted them into a Gist: https://gist.github.com/3012230 http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/display-name-author-permalink/ Thanks, Kevin. I pulled the updated code. Kevin, can you or someone else confirm my understanding of the incrementor code. I was reviewing the code before I use it, and I don’t think the uniqueness counter is going to behave as people might intuitively expect. Its fast and simple, but it looks like if there are two Jim’s, the first one could be Jim and the second could change to Jim4 if there were duplicates of two other names that weren’t even Jim. Example user list: Jim, Sally, Sally, Matt, Matt, Jim Results in: Jim, Sally, Sally2, Matt, Matt3, Jim4 Am I interpreting the code correctly? Has anyone tested this?

Comments

2 shown
pha3z 2012-11-10T01:46:00+00:00

Thanks, Kevin. I pulled the updated code.

pha3z 2012-11-10T01:57:00+00:00

Kevin, can you or someone else confirm my understanding of the incrementor code. I was reviewing the code before I use it, and I don’t think the uniqueness counter is going to behave as people might intuitively expect. Its fast and simple, but it looks like if there are two Jim’s, the first one could be Jim and the second could change to Jim4 if there were duplicates of two other names that weren’t even Jim. Example user list: Jim, Sally, Sally, Matt, Matt, Jim Results in: Jim, Sally, Sally2, Matt, Matt3, Jim4 Am I interpreting the code correctly? Has anyone tested this?