skrommel posted,
So you want the extension available on the Microsoft Store, and running in both Internet Explorer and Edge?
-skrommel
after replying,
Any way to package that and add it to the Internet Explorer gallery?
-silekonn
skwire asked,
@silekonn: If this solution is working for you, do you mind if I moved it to the Finished section?
-skwire
Why would adding items that did not relate to the request be a reason to mark it as finished? There were now two individuals confusing the request and without an easily ascertained reason. Hope was held things would steer back on course and someone could accomplish the task. An idea of the correct direction was provided by skrommel, just before he decided to take an unrelated direction.
The two weeks without response and the misdirection of those who had was nearing an impediment to the goodwill this project's fruition would result in. Trying to see the lighter side of things and remaining determined, another effort to structure things was created.
I do appreciate this and will throw Skrommel a $5 spot for his effort. It is not exactly what is needed. It has to be something that is a 'one click fix' for the luddites. If it is beyond the scope of the website or available programmers please accept my apologies. Edge is a bonus. Thank you for your patience and the time you invested.
-silekonn
A short side note. If unaware, Internet Explorer is a vastly different product than Edge. Edge was made as Internet Explorer's replacement. The two applications share a similar icon and little else. They are different systems.
Edge, being an element of a newer ideal, is linked into the Windows Store. Internet Explorer, for around two decades, is not directly linked to the Windows Store in much of any form. If someone understands these concepts, they may too understand the Internet Explorer Add-Ons Gallery is a part of a website. It exists solely to provide approved add-ons for Internet Explorer and is the destination of the link the Internet Explorer software offers in its add-ons section if one was to pursue attaining those add-ons. It has existed for many years and the codebase is not the same as that for the newer Edge software.
If the confusion this thread follows is due in part to the above being unclear to individuals it might be understood. For people who are coders, if they were to try to technically address a conversation about a request for an add-on (the term being different from extension, which is used by e. g. Edge or Chrome), it should already be knowledge. If not immediate, minimally after a direct reference.
The post was quickly met with,
So basically at this point, you need someone to convert what Skrommel did into a windows store extension and post it on Windows store?
-wraith808
Nothing about having to attain skrommel's code is present. The idea it should be converted was not conveyed. Knowing a minimum about coding will make it apparent everyone has their own system for writing it and small projects as the perfect example, it is often more time-consuming to interpret exactly how someone has designed something than to just recreate it with one's own vision.
The statement "a windows store extension and post it on Windows store" is difficult to grasp. Assuming "a Microsoft Edge extension posted in the Windows Store" was intended, that would not be supported by skrommel's own statements in response to the original request, when he confirmed about the goal,
That's a bit outside my field of expertise.
-skrommel
and
addons are made using MS Visual Studio.
-skrommel
and, when referring to his creation for Microsoft Edge,
it is unsigned, with all the hassels of warnings and manual installation, so publishing in the Windows Store is the way to go.
-skrommel
It is at these posts several earlier everyone should have no reason to be confused between the (goal) Internet Explorer Gallery and the Microsoft Store extensions for Edge because they are irrelevant to the underlying issue. skrommel contributed other items that did not match the goal by his own statements and the one that could have otherwise confused those unfamiliar is again by skrommel's statements not published. He cannot be faulted for creating more and at the same time the unrelated contributions may have served to add confusion to a request.
That which was not sought and instead added as an extra, that which was not added to the Windows Store "and that would be the way to go", why then would that finish the request?
"So" "basically," "at this point" would generally be said by someone lacking comprehension. It would have been easily forgiven. wraith808 further adds,
Or is there another impediment?
-wraith808
That would appear to be an insinuation for purposely impeding the request. It may just be lack of command of the English language, or somehow he believes asking "will there be other impediments" (impede: delay or prevent (someone or something) by obstructing them; hinder) was not rude and he believes its meaning is "can you think of anything to add that might be helpful?" That is difficult to imagine.
Equally difficult was at that point envisioning a completion of the request. The response less than two hours before wraith808's was in entirity,
I do appreciate this and will throw Skrommel a $5 spot for his effort. It is not exactly what is needed. It has to be something that is a 'one click fix' for the luddites. If it is beyond the scope of the website or available programmers please accept my apologies. Edge is a bonus. Thank you for your patience and the time you invested.
-silekonn
which was not converse. It was beginning to feel derailed by a toxic elements.
Completion before clarity, working on something for real money with a description two sentences in length and not even attempting to gain a better understanding should in context be against better judgement. It may be the request was complicated by the firm compensation offer, prompting someone to finish first to attain a decent reward for what could be construed as a simple request (for those that minimally know and use AutoIt). It might have created a sense of urgency to complete it before the next individual was first to do so.
Confusing the issue followed, "So you want the extension available on the Microsoft Store, and running in both Internet Explorer and Edge" and was followed repeatedly. It appears to stem from a lack of understanding of the basic system for which the reference was made.
When things are both "basically" and "at a point", something lacks clarity. What isn't clear is why. The mistake was terming the demeanor marked in the second half of that quote as hostility instead of sarcastic and rude.
The reasons for which wraith808 decided the requests were purposely confusing was a bit more than time allowed, the thread was now drawing individuals that had no understanding of the system and an incredible desire to insist some other individual receive their offered tip before the person in question had decided to comment, "that is fair, thank you," "the full $20 would be appreciated, thank you" or "no thank you." skrommel had not made it clear it was anyone else's place to arrange what he receives and may well have already arranged for with others unaware.
It might be a turning point on the idea something created here to benefit charities would be achieved. Knowing a combination of hasty decisions, injection of unrelated ideas and worse meant pursuing this was unlikely to yield anything beyond that which was is exhibited in a large part of the posts that follow (at its best, the site and its userbase receiving praise).
It should not be expected that the average internet user understands the reasonable expectation of completing a goal in a thread. When it is ten posts deep in back and forth about first something not quite right and then progressively further from an idea, and adds in someone pointing fingers about false goals and promises unkept, it is equally clear people don't generally grab popcorn.
It is with greater difficulty anyone would want to compensate someone for a small effort, for example creating something without taking a few seconds to gain a modicum of clarity that might save the time. Minimally coders that have familiarity with add-ons (vs. extensions) or anyone that has the knowledge to differentiate between the Internet Explorer add-on system and other browsers', knowing not having that knowledge is a lack of understanding for the request.
It would be difficult providing a compensation at such a distance from any understanding. After the amount of energy expended to explain exactly why it that is, to say nothing for the reasoning it would be believed otherwise, the result might be unusable and that is complicated with a concern the next moderator may come along and mark the project as finished with a similar amount of time invested reviewing what occurred. An even greater difficulty would be a small effort made by one individual and then three of his friends come along and insinuate a lack of character for someone who made a request for charity and offered extra funds, out of that person's own shallow pockets and out of good will, knowing that those same three people had completely derailed any chance of the project again seeing the light of day with baseless concepts for confusing the goal and insistence for a /tip/ that was intended and might have increased had they not supported the person and waited to see if skrommel returned and wanted to request /more/.
I did intend giving skrommel $5 because I said I would. If the next thought is to pat yourselves on your backs, or to continue to insist payment occur immediately or that the character of the requestor and request be called to question, it is my sincere hope that you soon find benignity in your future. For all the back-patting that has happened here, few can follow the course of logic in this thread.
If I have provided clarity please notify me.
