Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

5

This is what custom filters are for. For example, if you append &filter=!BGRhem4Z)WIti9lP55R*tgr(Jq_fHC to your query, above, you will get results without upvote_count, downvote_count, or owner information. (The first two aren't included by default anyway.) An easy way to create a filter is to use the filter-edit tool, on the appropriate doc page for ...


4

Filters are created by sending include, exclude, and base to /filters/create. You can use GET for rapid prototyping, or POST when the amount of data you're sending grows too large for a GET. base specifies a filter to use as a template. It is the "default" filter, by default. A blank slate can be achieved by using "none". include and exclude contain ...


3

Yes, maybe. for post score and user rep, there are api methods that will give you the results you want. For data points that are not covered by the sort param, you would need to build a dataset of users and then filter that. Data points such as up_vote_count are definitely not going to be/cannot be indexed by a search engine. I have a service that will be ...


2

The most straightforward way to get the body is to use the named withbody filter, which you pass in as the value of the filter parameter (example). This will give you all of the default fields, along with the post body. You can also create a custom filter that passes back question.body and answer.body where appropriate along with your select choice of other ...


2

Well, this was a fun one. Basically, a number of methods were figuring out that you weren't asking for any fields on an object type (like, say, users) and short-circuiting around database queries. Unfortunately, there are also some methods that relying on the database queries to populate total. This generally happened in the "query by id" methods. So, I ...


2

No, we won't be implementing this. Not that I don't see a use case for it, but we'd never be able to accept and execute arbitrary regular expressions against the database. It'd just be far too easy cripple performance wise (we've done this accidentally plenty of times, and we don't have to worry about malicious actors on the dev team). While we could ...


1

The API console in the documentation should attach it's key to all requests now. For the filter creation error, what's happening there is actually a size check against the incoming parameters .NET enforces. A better error is returned now, but the proper course of action for a consumer remains the same; use POST when creating filters with a large # of ...


1

You're not returning .items, which contains the objects that have the fields you want back. When you include it you get !*QjqSxwBvapC)EVC)JW_Vhi*w4jvF.WzEYmxBpMaH, which does return values for /sites, /questions, and /users.


1

Perhaps a good approach would be to cache the entire list of tags on a site (there are only 770, or 25 pages worth on Travel.SE). You can then run them through a RegEx locally. Tags don't change very much so you could just refresh your list every week or so to keep it up to date. You didn't specify a particular language / framework, but if you were using ...


1

I personally think that this would be more trouble than it's worth - and I'm speaking about the tremendous amount of work that the API maintainers would have to go through to filter malicious RegEx queries. ...and not only malicious, but also queries that would take a long time to parse/execute. I think that if a web giant like Google doesn't support ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible