Can you post the exact version of Moodle and database that you are using? See Admin > Server > Environment. Performance has been improved somewhat in 1.8.3+ and a by quite a lot in 1.9.
Also look under:
Admin > Miscellaneous > XMLDB > Check Indexes
What does that say?
Martin Dougiamas
Posts made by Martin Dougiamas
Peter, just go to Admin > Modules > Filters and turn on the "Resource Names Auto-Linking" filter.
All you need to do then (in any text throughout Moodle) is to mention the NAME of the resource (exactly) and it will be automatically turned into a correct hyperlink.
eg Interactive map of Moodle users
This link is inserted at display time, and so survives moves or rebuilds etc.
All you need to do then (in any text throughout Moodle) is to mention the NAME of the resource (exactly) and it will be automatically turned into a correct hyperlink.
eg Interactive map of Moodle users
This link is inserted at display time, and so survives moves or rebuilds etc.
There is a plan in Moodle 2.0 to implement site-wide groups and one of the features is exactly this.
In the meantime to attain that kind of separation you need to install a Moodle for each department. Lucky the license is $0, eh?
In the meantime to attain that kind of separation you need to install a Moodle for each department. Lucky the license is $0, eh?
Hi, Gary.
I posted in MDL-12096 before I saw this. Yes, the current method was by design, since all the items by default have an equal weight (not an implicit weight governed by their maximum value).
I think a new "Sum of grades" aggregation method is a very clean solution to this, providing exactly what you want in a clear simple way. I've asked Petr to implement that.
As well as weights, you could also do this in a less-easy way by creating a manual calculation for the final column, something like:
However, I'm also keen to hear discussion on all this. Throughout the whole gradebook design I've really come to appreciate that there are often a lot of unique points of view about how grading should be done! We really need feedback like Gary's to find out what you want.
Is the way we are normalising grades something that no-one wants?
I posted in MDL-12096 before I saw this. Yes, the current method was by design, since all the items by default have an equal weight (not an implicit weight governed by their maximum value).
I think a new "Sum of grades" aggregation method is a very clean solution to this, providing exactly what you want in a clear simple way. I've asked Petr to implement that.
As well as weights, you could also do this in a less-easy way by creating a manual calculation for the final column, something like:
=SUM( A, B, C )(Then you can easily display the result as a percentage/value/letter as you want).
However, I'm also keen to hear discussion on all this. Throughout the whole gradebook design I've really come to appreciate that there are often a lot of unique points of view about how grading should be done! We really need feedback like Gary's to find out what you want.
Is the way we are normalising grades something that no-one wants?
Hi, David.
No, of course you won't get flamed
The GPL itself is very clear, see http://docs.moodle.org/en/License
There is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of those three things - good luck with it!
The only issue, as others have raised, could be if you are using the Moodle trademark at the same time. Since these situations are sometimes complex and hard to encode in black and white rules, contact me directly (as described on the licence link above) and we can discuss the details directly. I've given a thumbs up to the vast majority of people who've asked this way.
No, of course you won't get flamed
The GPL itself is very clear, see http://docs.moodle.org/en/License
There is absolutely nothing stopping you doing any of those three things - good luck with it!
The only issue, as others have raised, could be if you are using the Moodle trademark at the same time. Since these situations are sometimes complex and hard to encode in black and white rules, contact me directly (as described on the licence link above) and we can discuss the details directly. I've given a thumbs up to the vast majority of people who've asked this way.