It is probably not the server that is busy, but your server that doesn't have enough memory for the comfort update. So far I never had problems with the comfort update due to the server being unavailable. But when your memory limit is too small, the update won't work, because the script needs more memory.

What is the exact error message that you receive?

Update server busy

The update server is currently busy. This usually happens when the update files for a new version are being prepared.

Please be patient and try again in about 10 minutes.

Hmm, OK, this sounds more like a problem with the update server, you are right. Or it might be a connection problem.

Is your server installed locally (within your local network) and for example behind a firewall?

So far I had never problems like this. That is why I am a little surprised.

I am getting the exact same error message:

The update server is currently busy. This usually happens when the update files for a new version are being prepared.

This is while trying to update to 1.92+(120325)

It's been like this all day. Is something really wrong?

tpartner wrote: Cool.

For other users - question.pstpl must contain the {QUESTION_NUMBER} and/or {QUESTION_CODE} placeholders.

Hi, this is my question.pstpl, but the question numbers don't appear at all. I'm using the default template on limesurvey hosting service.

I tried to use Show question number only and Show both in general settings - "Show question number and/or question code"

Using those settings and that template, it should work. Can you activate a test survey?

It works. First I though the reason are the scripts integrated in some of the questions, but in fact I confused the general settings and the survey settings.


This brings another issue. Certain questions in the survey attached are "customised" - they have one or two following questions integrated as columns and therefore their question numbers appear in columns, whereas they shouldn't. Furthermore, all the question numbering down the line messes up because of this.



The simplest solution would be to mark those integrated questions with a help of javascript as "non relevant for question numbering" I suppose. I have no idea how the script would look like.

Another option would be to correct already used script so a question would be copied/transferred in the column of a previous question by leaving out the "th" definition, that is to say the question name. But I think the question itself would be still counted as any other regular question so it's not really a solution.

A sample survey is attached, the scripts used for tailoring are included.


And something else appeared: in certain questions a new line is created right behind the question number.







I hope all this makes sense.

Concerning the new line after a question number the problem were whitespace characters which appeared out of nowhere inside the paragraph tags. So instead: should be:
Maybe this has something to do with the option "Hide tip" in the question advanced settings. However, if that happens deleting everything around the question text (including the <p> tags) will help.

Can you activate a test survey?

The link to the test survey. It's similar to the .lss I posted in my last post.

After looking at the survey I think that, while you could solve all of the problems with JavaScript, it would be far simpler to manually place he question numbers in the text.

In fact I started doing that by using {Qcode.qseq} and {Qcode.qseq - n}, where n is a constant used for subtracting.

It's a viable alternative when the survey contains up to 20 or 30 questions. In my case there will be about 70 or 80 questions. A lot of javascript tailoring is used which means all the structure is flexible and I won't really know the exact number of questions just until the survey is launched. If I had to add or remove a question at the beginning that would mean all the qseq codes or the manually set numbers would have to be corrected.

That's why the idea of flagging all the non relevant questions for numbering is not bad. In fact this flag should be accessible in the question advanced setting in one of the next LS versions. Users could then exclude numbering from boilerplate questions and in other situations, like mine for example.