I'm trying to annotate a dataset using crowdflower where the users might not be sure about the answer in some instances. Is there a way to allow users to "skip" questions, or replace one question by another?
Do not use the required validator and the contributor will be able to send his judgment without providing an answer for any of your fields.
I'm not sure there is a way to replace a question by another, though.
Related
I've got a question related to oracle database and working with an API/web service to extract data from said database for use.
My experience in the area is limited so I'm hoping for some discussion here about it. My goal is to create a web service that has several fields and the should all fields submitted match an entry in the database, the program should return something positive, lets just say "true". If false, it will identify that there is a problem with the input.
My understanding right now is I can first use an API to expose the data, which I can then manipulate and query-check with a web service? Correct me if I am wrong with this general/overall plan. Moving on from this, if anyone have any relevant advice or programs that might prove to be useful here, but the main goal of posting this is to get a high-level understanding of the process.
Also, the plan is to use REST/JSON services here. Thanks all.
I am also not very skilled yet but if I correctly understand your question the answer could be ORDS
I found many essential informations here
With ORDS is possible to POST a request associated with a store procedure that do all the validations that the client can't do.
I want to build a small Access database to better keep track of the companies we are looking at. I read Access 2010 Inside Out by Conrad/Viescas, did a lot of their examples and had the feeling I understood the basics, so I started with my own data base. Now the struggle begins, I think I have a basic misunderstanding here.
The relation I started with is quite simple: Each company we look at can have listed peers that we want to use to compare this company to. Of course, each company can have many peers and each peer can be the peer of many of our companies. So I modelled this relation as a many-to-many relationship:
Next, I created the form for a company, which looked something like this:
I related the subform I used to show the peers with a query that is based on tblPeersCompanies_1 and gives some additional information. What I now want from a user perspective is straightforward: A user should simply add peers to this subform for the company he is currently viewing. Access should then automatically update tblPeersCompanies_1 and tblPeers_1. The peers really serve no other purpose than to relate them to a company.
However, I struggle implementing this. Adding a new peer to the subform does not work, simply because it is not based on tblPeers_1 and if I enter the information there, Access notices that the peer is not in that table yet. (That is at least what I think the problem is). How can this be achieved though? I don't want the user to open another form, enter the peer first, go back to this form, type the peer again and the other related information. I hope that there must a simple way to do that automatically. Or is this indeed not so simple.
In summary, the question probably can be phrased as: "How to add records to a matching table and a related one-table on the fly in a form?"
Thanks to the great comment by #Remou, I found a solution to this problem. It contais three steps:
Use a combo box as outlined in another SO post
Use this function to automatically enter new records in case the peer is missing. Call this function in the "On Not in List" event
Show other values from tblPeers by linking it to the selected value in the combo box, as explained here
I have to say, this is much harder than I hoped it to be. Let's hope that the learning curve is steep and that it will at least be easy to use for the user and quite robust.
Current Situation
I currently have a custom post type. This custom post type has numerous custom fields. There are many posts of this type, all with the custom fields filled out.
Currently, there is ONE POST of this custom post type that corresponds to each author on the blog. No author has more than one of these posts. The method in which it corresponds is simple, they are the author of their own post.
I used the Advanced Custom Fields plugin to set up and manage my custom fields, and I plan to continue doing that.
What I Want to Do
Instead of having these custom fields entered in each author's corresponding post, I would like them to be listed directly in their user meta. I can set up the custom fields easily in there using Advanced Custom Fields, even give them the same names and ids.
The the tricky part would be transferring all this data over. I COULD do it manually, but it would take ages. There is a lot of data to deal with.
Can anyone think of a way to automate this? It might be something as simple as renaming an entire table in the database. I have no idea, I don't know much about mysql databases.
WHY I want to do this, for those interested
Originally I just needed a way to list a bunch of people, and have a bunch of information about them listed on a page. It was not immediately clear to me that these people were all going to be USERS on the site, so at the time it made sense to just make a custom post type, and just enter each person into that with all their meta data.
But then they all became users on the site, and also authors with their own blog posts. And now I need to be able to query meta data about them FROM a blog post. But I can't figure out any way to do that, since their meta data isn't directly connected to their user account. It would appear that it would just be way easier (and more properly done) to tie all that data directly to their account.
Alternate Solution? Might be easier
There could be another way to make this work too. If someone can figure out a way to tie that custom post type post directly to its author, to the extent that you could somehow query it from anywhere as long as you knew which author you were querying, that would work and actually be better.
Possible ways to do that (these are just ideas) could include:
-Manually adding the custom post ID to a custom author meta field, so that you could get the ID of the corresponding post from the author's meta (not ideal, since I would have to enter this manually for every new author)
-That was actually my only idea. I thought of somehow using the username and hoping you can mess with that until you get the corresponding custom post... But there is no way to do that I think without tons of bugs.
Take a look to the excellent Posts 2 Posts plugin. In the official Wiki you can find a specific topic that seems to fit your needs: it's called Posts 2 Users. I hope this will be helpful for you.
I want to make application like testing system. Every question has one or many variant of answers (and one or many can be right). I apologize that tutors and students use my testing system. It means that tutor can make CRUD operations with subject, questions and answers. But in this case appeares one big problem as saving version. For example, I am a tutor and I decide edit some question or answer ( or may be several questions and several answers). When I enter as student, I want to get a list of questions in which I made mistakes but tutor already edited this question and I get wrong information.
Main question: How I can save editable data in database?
Each test has questions and every question has naswers. Tutors can edit/add/delete any of those components. For example, he or she can modify one of the questsion's text, add several questions to a test and edit one of the answers to the question that has just been modified. Any hints how I can handle all this so that I could retreive a version of the test at the exact time in the past?
Here is what I have come up with so far. The solution is extremely complex and I feel there is a better way of doing that.
I could not read your design very well, too small. But from what I understand from your description of the problem, I would create a new table that will hold corrected answers, and link it to each answer the student written. I would make it with a one-to-many relationship so that I could write more than one correction for the same answer, and thus enable the user to see multiple responses from the tutor..
We're developing a system to replace an old application from our clients.
Actually there are many entities (like merchants, salesmen, products, etc) that must have a manual assigned ID -so they can be integrated with other existing systems. i.e. accounting.
We think the best solution is simply allow the user to assign the entities IDs manually when the entity is being created; we're going to suggest him the next available ID, and the user will be able to change it if they want. no updates allowed! (muahahaha)
We'll be glad to hear your thoughts about. Pros / Cons
Thanks in advance :)
PD: Do you know any documentation about? -Entities and IDs-
UPDATES
We think there should be cases when this applies and do not. so...
Additionally there are cases when the client literally wants that a given entity has an Id they bring. organization internal codes I think.
Never, ever, ever let the user have access to assign or create the underlying objects identifier. These must be system maintained.
Imagine the nightmare of trying to figure out which entity a related entity actually goes with in the event that the user picks an id that is already in use.
Instead, you should have a regular entity ID of some type (int, guid, whatever) that the system assigns and uses for links to all dependent objects. Then have an "external" id of some sort that the user can put their own identifier in.
Maybe that relates to an external system in some way, maybe not. Point is, you'll be able to maintain your own consistency regardless of what they do.
What is usually done is to specify your own, usually hidden, identifier that is used internally. Then create a second identifier that the user can use as a separate data field. Also, you can get into a bit of a concurrency trouble if you try to suggest the next ID.
I guess this boils down to a separation of concern issues. If you've been developing apps for more than a year you should already know why you need an object identifier in your rdb's, if your users need to concern themselves with assigning and/or managing your underlying object identifiers then you have a design problem, and this problem is that you are mixing data access/storage concerns with business logic. As others already said the best approach is to have two identifiers, one that is transparent to the user and used internally in your app and the other to be used in your integration processes.
I've seen a similar case while working with retailers, there's an id and a product's SKU, the sku itself could be the id yet to allow for a good design we have both.