Skip to main content
replaced http://stackapps.com/ with https://stackapps.com/
Source Link

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, herehere, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

I appreciate CP's work so I'll rewrite history.
Source Link

Me usingIn my situation, this code will probably benefit [email protected] perhaps more than it will benefit myself. I'd Basically, I'd like to permit users to log into my site and grant them additional permissions if they have a high SO rating. This will in turn get you more users through an "Affiliate" and sell more advertising. I'll have the benefit of weeding out spammers and non-technical people.

If you believe it's worthwhile to get payment for the library in this use case, perhaps you should sell it to team@stack[email protected]

I hope the adversarial tone I feel coming on is due to the limitations of the format. What I infer from your last sentence is that you feel that I am asking too much from you in providing free code for free usage but requiring an explicit agreement for taking it out of FLOSS.

Zero adversarial tone there... I totally appreciate your work and was trying tohope those ideas help you cross promote since. I think SO should pay for your library if it drives traffic to their site, since they are getting increased advertising traffic from that. Maybe you can get compensation from both sides (SO and the consumer).

code poet

Great. Now don't I feel like a dick. ;-) Maybe it will make interesting reading for others.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

MakerOfThings7:

Not sure what a CW dev tip is, but I'll look for it when it's ready.

Me using this code will benefit [email protected] perhaps more than it will benefit myself. I'd like to permit users to log into my site and grant them additional permissions if they have a high SO rating. This will in turn get you more users through an "Affiliate" and sell more advertising. I'll have the benefit of weeding out spammers and non-technical people.

If you believe it's worthwhile to get payment for the library in this use case, perhaps you should sell it to team@stack

I hope the adversarial tone I feel coming on is due to the limitations of the format. What I infer from your last sentence is that you feel that I am asking too much from you in providing free code for free usage but requiring an explicit agreement for taking it out of FLOSS.

Zero adversarial tone there... I totally appreciate your work and was trying to help you cross promote since SO should pay for your library if it drives traffic to their site. Maybe you can get compensation from both sides (SO and the consumer).

code poet

Great. Now don't I feel like a dick. ;-) Maybe it will make interesting reading for others.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

In my situation, this code will probably benefit [email protected] more than it will benefit myself. Basically, I'd like to permit users to log into my site and grant them additional permissions if they have a high SO rating. This will in turn get you more users through an "Affiliate" and sell more advertising. I'll have the benefit of weeding out spammers and non-technical people.

If you believe it's worthwhile to get payment for the library in this use case, perhaps you should sell it to [email protected]

What I infer from your last sentence is that you feel that I am asking too much from you in providing free code for free usage but requiring an explicit agreement for taking it out of FLOSS.

I totally appreciate your work and hope those ideas help you cross promote. I think SO should pay for your library if it drives traffic to their site, since they are getting increased advertising traffic from that. Maybe you can get compensation from both sides (SO and the consumer).

code poet

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

MakerOfThings7:

Not sure what a CW dev tip is, but I'll look for it when it's ready.

added 720 characters in body
Source Link
Sky Sanders
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 32
  • 60

code poet

Great. Now don't I feel like a dick. ;-) Maybe it will make interesting reading for others.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

code poet

Great. Now don't I feel like a dick. ;-) Maybe it will make interesting reading for others.

Regarding the 'users by hash' question, I know the issue has been raised in several posts, here, and in great detail in a meta post that I cannot find, but in short, the only way to do this is to maintain a complete list of users which you index yourself. This is a task that, if handled properly, is not unreasonable from both the perspective of maintenance and that of API usage. The utility of such a dataset goes far beyond simply finding users by email. I will post a CW dev-tip regarding this.

added 443 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
added 67 characters in body
Source Link
Sky Sanders
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 32
  • 60
Loading
added 1232 characters in body
Source Link
Sky Sanders
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 32
  • 60
Loading
added 526 characters in body
Source Link
Loading
added 1950 characters in body
Source Link
Sky Sanders
  • 12.1k
  • 3
  • 32
  • 60
Loading
Source Link
Loading