## On google forms, can someone edit their response but can’t add a new one?

But when using different browsers or different computers, it can add responses, how to solve it? so that someone can only edit their responses without being able to add more responses?

Because the assumption is that the form has been closed, so one can only edit the responses that he has sent.

## Can we use signed in email address of the user to auto fill the email text box in google forms.?

I am creating a google form in which people will enter their names and email address and other details. I have done this previously but have noticed that most of the people uses their wrong email address. I want to create a google form which will have name and email address. I will share the link of the form to users.

Users will have to first sign in to their gmail account and then they will be redirected to google form in which I want that the email text box should be automatically filled and should not editable.

For ex, john27@gmail.com has signed in and opened the google form. So the email text box in form should automatically fill up with `john27@gmail.com` and should be non editable so that user cannot edit and we capture the users valid email address.

## forms – How can I deal with diverse gender identities in user profiles?

I was having a discussion with my housemate who is a data analyst by trade, and the conclusion that we came to is that there are two sensible options here, depending on the amount of work you personally want to do (we’re assuming here that the collection of gender data is actually useful to you, rather than simply of interest in which case it is almost always better to leave it out).

The simple option is to have three or four discrete options: `Female`, `Male`, `Other`, and possibly `Prefer not to say`. In my experience, this is the most acceptable option for gathering data while being both simple and inclusive – it acknowledges that there are people who don’t fit the gender binary, allows users to select a different option, and doesn’t overload your cisgendered users with lots of options. It also allows people to completely opt out if they really don’t want to answer (the standard objection is that it’ll negatively impact your data collection, but in practice it probably doesn’t make much of a difference). Note that if gender identity is particularly important to your application, then this may not be the most sensible or inclusive option.

The ideal but more complex option is to have a textbox and suck it up – it’s a data sanitisation problem. A simple find/replace on your dataset will be able to lump your users into a group of man/male/boy responses, a group of woman/female/girl responses, and a group of assorted other responses. Crucially if you’re doing demographic analysis, whatever is left over probably isn’t statistically significant at an individual level so in your analysis it is acceptable to put them in an internal `Other` category. You can then preserve that minority data for further study should you find you need it.

Alternatively, as noted in the comments, it may be possible to combine the two approaches. Once a user selects your `Other` option, you could then display a text box which allows them to specify their gender identity exactly. This has the benefit of minimising cognitive load on cisgendered users while also capturing specific minority data. The downsides are that you may still run into issues sanitising this data to make it useful, and your form must be able to handle revealing a hidden element.

Gender is the correct label for this field, from a descriptive point of view and from a data collection point of view. You’d be surprised how many people think it’s hilarious to answer `Sex:` with “Yes please”.

If you choose to go with the simple dropdown/radio button approach, then `Other` is probably the most appropriate label for the third group. It is easily understandable, and non-exclusive in terms of what it might represent. `Transgender` is probably not an appropriate label here unless you include additional ones because it excludes people outside the binary who are not transgender or who do not view the label as appropriate for them, and it doesn’t actually tell you the respondent’s gender (transgender just tells you their gender is not the same as their assigned sex at birth). The problem with the use of the word “other” is that it is exclusionary and can potentially feel like the user is being shoved into a box of leftovers – not an ideal experience! For that reason, a text box is probably preferred if you want to make sure you’re being inclusive.

Think Outside The Box mirrors these recommendations and has some other interesting guidelines for form construction.

## forms – What is the best way to hide a Honeypot Captcha?

I hide the honeypot field using some positioning/clipping as I suspect `display: none` is a clue to a spambot to avoid the field. At the least, it’s a possibility.

However, I appreciate it seems a lot for a bot to parse the HTML class and find the property value pair in the CSS itself. I wonder if class names such as `hide` alert the spammer? That would be a lot easier to figure out.

Ideally, we’d make the form as usable and easy as possible and deal with any spam that generates away from the user. The problem here can be financial, especially if you’re running a static/headless site, as most form services charge for the number of submissions you generate. For example, Netlify will give you 100 submissions a month for free, but then they’ll charge.

My anecdotal evidence was that more spam appeared to get through my Netlify forms when I was using `display: none`. Of course, Netlify’s own spam filter may have improved, so I can’t be sure the clipping/positioning approach made a difference.

If you are hiding the form rather than blitzing it a screen reader will still announce it. This is one of the few occasions where `display: none` makes something more usable as it means one less field to interpret and navigate for a screen reader. However, I don’t think it’s right to say not using `display: none` is inaccessible; as long as the honey pot field has a label that makes it obvious the field should be left empty, it’s accessible.

I guess there’s also the possibility that spam bots scan the label text to identify honey pot fields. This poses another problem – how do you avoid words like robot and spam in the field label?

## c# – Integrar MercadoPago Checkout en Xamarin Forms

Estoy diseñando una aplicación para android y iOs en la cual necesito realizar cobros en el momento ya que es de delivery. Quisiera integrar el sistema de mercado pago pero no encuentro ninguna guía ni nada específico que me ayude a integrarlo de manera correcta.

Desde ya espero su ayuda.
Saludos!!

I have an entity form with a dependent field. The dependent field is created following this guide and using Business Rules module.

Everything works fine, but now the form takes an insane amount of time to load (7011.24 ms) and makes an insane amount of queries (4040).

These queries come from business_rules.process and many of them are repeated. For example, this one `SELECT name, value FROM key_value_expire WHERE collection = :collection AND expire > :now` is made 1287 times.

If I disable the Bussines Rules module or remove the dependent field, everything goes to normal, with ~120 queries and normal form loading time.

Is there something I am missing? If not, any alternatives to make a dependent field?

## Can a lambda expression be beta-equal to beta-normal forms?

Given a Lambda Expression Term T can it be beta-equal to two different Lambda Terms T1 and T2, both T1 and T2 are in beta-normal form?

## differential geometry – How to compute Weitzenböck identity for forms?

I am interested to calculate the Hodge Laplacian of $$k$$ forms in local coordinates. For this I want to apply the following formula:

Let $$omega$$ be a $$k$$-form and $$M$$ be a Riemannian manifold with Levi-Civita connection $$nabla$$. Asuume the metric tensor is given by $$g =g_{ij} dx^a dx^b$$. Then $$textbf{Weitzenböck formula}$$ is as follows.

$$textbf{Weitzenböck formula:}$$ The Weitzenböck formula states that the Hodge Laplacian on $$k$$-forms satisfies $$Deltaomega=(ddelta+delta d)omega=nabla^*nablaomega +operatorname{Ric}(omega),$$ where $$nabla^*nabla$$ is given by $$nabla^*nabla=-sum_{k,j} big{ g^{kj}nabla_knabla_j+frac{1}{sqrt{|g|}}partial_{x^k}big(sqrt{|g|}g^{kj}big)cdotnabla_j big}.$$

Moreover, the details of $$textbf{Weitzenböck formula}$$ can be found here.

I am facing problems to compute this. How should I start this? Moreover at this moment I want to unwind the formula for $$2$$-forms, or $$1$$-forms. I should I start this? Which things I need to compute to unwind the formula?

Also I want to know how to compute the ricci term $$Ric (omega)$$ in this case?