Posts by jwmcpeak

The Envato marketplaces are exactly like any other marketplace; they facilitate the means for sellers to sell their goods and for buyers to buy them.

Do you walk into a physical store, purchase an item, leave the store, and expect that store to give you call when the item you purchased is no longer available? Do you expect the store to call you to tell you the manufacturer of the item you purchased is no longer in business? What about Amazon? Do you expect Amazon to do the same thing?

If your answers to the above questions are “no” (and I assume they are), why do you expect different behavior from Envato? There is nothing different, in this respect, between Envato and other retailers—both physical and virtual.

I think mafiatic is taking issue with the name of the item—not its functionality. So while you have a point with #3 (similar products on the market), the names of said products are noticeably different than their competition. In this case, the names are extremely similar.

Mafiatic, contact support regarding the naming issue.

You could use the native DOM API and get the best perf. http://jsperf.com/jquery-children-vs-jquery-data/2

This is theoretical, but the theory is based on a few things:

• The DOM will be read regardless of taking #1 or #2.
• The #2 approach potentially has a greater impact on perceived performance because of the enumeration of the elements, storing their data, and removing them from the document.
• The #1 approach has the potential to be slower due to access via the DOM for the same elements.

So I would do a combination of the two. As the data is read from the element, cache it in the array and then remove the element. This has the following advantages:

• The data is loaded on demand and processed only if selected by the user.
• The DOM tree shrinks as users select unique images.
• The DOM is read once per image; data is read faster for subsequent requests for the same image due to being stored in the array.

Once again, it’s theoretical, but I think it would be the best approach. Naturally, only testing would confirm.

Without testing, #1 would be better. Any memory gains from getting rid of the elements in the DOM will be offset somewhat by the data being stored in JavaScript. You’d still end up with memory being used—how much of a difference remains to be seen.

I agree. I prefer (x + 2) as opposed to ( x + 2 ). Too much white spaces can be just as bad as not enough.

Some good stuff at https://github.com/rwldrn/idiomatic.js/

Before I comment any further: for every slider that is accepted, there are eight to ten that are rejected.

mordauk said
Very well said, but one of the issues I see is that in any other category, one there are 4-5 items of very similar nature, no further items are accepted. Sliders is the only category where dozens of the same item are permitted.

It depends on the category. Sliders are still evolving—gaining more features as time goes on. While the evolutionary process isn’t as fast as I would prefer, there is forward movement—which is better than nothing. Compare that with other categories like tooltips, notifications, and lightboxes. These categories are largely stagnant. New entries haven’t done anything but repeat the same feature-set without adding new and meaningful functionality. It makes sense to grow categories that demonstrate feature growth; whereas, it makes sense and halt other categories that stagnate.

So yeah, we have a ton of sliders, but customers have a wide selection to choose from based upon the features they want and need. We’ve pretty much reached the end of the image+caption+floating call out text slider that has been popular for the past six to twelve months. We’ll stop accepting those until someone meaningfully expands the feature-set.

SportTipsWorld said
Some of the reviewers need to check up on stuff huh.

An Italian food reviewer should keep up with every new pizza recipe in the world.

LeftArmy said
What do you mean? It was submitted to the PHP category.

Nope. JavaScript. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gotten that rejection reason (and I wouldn’t have reviewed your item).