I just added my technical blog. It's on blogger, so my first surprise was it not showing up at all. I then switched the feed from Atom to RSS, and it showed up just fine.
In my article i tried to replicate the tags used on CodeProject the best i could, however when the article was pulled, the tags associated with it was totally off, and i had to go and edit the article on CodeProject to categorize it right.
Is there something i'm missing ? Maybe the way blogger exposes tags is incompatible in the way CodeProject detects tags ? Or maybe it's possible to just annotate the article on the blog with microformats ?
No clue here, just trying to figure out what could have gone wrong. That aside i think it's totally awesome to be able to post an article on my blog, and have it automagically syndicated over here. Great job on that !
Actually i thought i did something wrong somewhere, since it's kind of contradictive to have an automated mechanism that can pull articles, if you then have to come in person to configure things manually.
Would be cool if the parser could just match tags that are already configured here, with the tags exposed in the article. Like this authors would just have to comply with the syntax used here, which i doubt would pose any problems to anyone.
Thanks again, and hope to see some evolutions on that side. The system is a great idea, but i understand you need a minimum of compliance between your actual system and distant posts.
Admin !!!!! Kindly help me with my code as when i paste it from a code editor and do the formatting select C# language, first it shows the correct code but then it still shows garbage. Kindly remove these defects and post my article. I am fed up of doing this and have wasted more than 6 hours on this !!!
If you are using the Article Wizard, there's an option to upload files (you should see this to the right of the article editor). Once you've uploaded a file, another option becomes available to insert this file.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
I saw an article recently and I realized that it performed an identical function to an article that I posted. I wanted to show that my article was an alternative. When I went to the alternative article section the site expected me to write out a whole new article. Is there a way that I link my article as an alternative article?
I'm working on an article and cannot upload any images to it. My images are all .png (though I changed one to .jpg just to try it and it still didn't work). The biggest image is 23kb and 500 px wide so they should all meet the requirements.
When I click the Upload button I get this:
Unexpected error during upload. One or more files may not have been uploaded.
I thought maybe my work was blocking access somehow, but I was able to upload a profile picture to my account.
Over the last year I received a lot of comments which lead me to create jqAlert[^] as well as make several updates. My thought was to write another article but this time only detailing it's use. I am wondering though if it would just be best to write updates to this article or to create a whole new?
I don't to break or violate any guidelines and appreciate any input on this. Since I have had nothing but positive experience from the articles I have done so far I don't mind writing a new article.
The updates I am making are hopefully going to be finished before the end of this year.
Thanks in advance.
as if the facebook, twitter and message boards weren't enough - blogged
I can see from your previous article you have a talent for writing for CodeProject so no worries there.
Typically articles are more "this is how this works and how I made it" rather than "this is how you use it," but I have faith you'll be able to navigate that line well.
As long as there's a local copy of the code (we're more than happy to have one to the github as well) I think it should do great. I'd be happy to give a look over it at any stage as well if you want guideline feedback. Looking forward to it!
I am about to post my first article here as part of our class project and similar to me other 8 or 9 groups in my class are also supposed to put their C# Class projects here.
The Projects are made by groups of students, now HOW to add Co-authors in articles so that the whole group gets the credit instead of only a single guy, also we are supposed to put out teacher's name as co-author as well.
I can't figure out what the Member ID is, how to add it and my friend tried adding member username on his article: Mouse Control via Webcam[^] and failed to do so.
I recently updated my article at: ExpTreeLib Version 3 - Explorer-like Navigation and Operation for your Forms[^]
The major parts of the update were new versions of the article Source and Demo downloads.
I obviously did not understand how to upload new versions of these zips. I uploaded the new zips with new names (indicating the version differences). In my note to the editor, I pointed out that I had new versions of the zips, but that does not seem to enough.
The article text has changed, but the download links are still pointing to the old versions of the zips.
How can I fix this?
Thanks, that has accomplished almost all of what is needed.
The almost part is that the Fourth download link should be removed since it points to the older version of the Demo download.
The line/link to remove reads "Download demo Project - 81.5 KB".
I do have a question though.
If I want to update the download files, how do I do it correctly using the Wizard?
I rather suspect that my problem was caused by "Add Files" when my new files did not have the same name as the files they were to replace. Is this a correct suspicion?
I am inclined to think that there is some virtue in having different versions have a version marker in the name to distinguish them from the old, but if that causes problems, then I could (probably) live with it.
If you update them by the same name, the old files should be replaced after you hit "Publish." If you use a new file name, I would recommend deleting the existing files from the HTML (you can from the article too if you want) and upload the new files, hit the "Add selected zip files to article". If you didn't delete the files from the article you will have to remove the entries you don't want from the HTML. This little entry may help:
You won't be able to put a link in your YouTube video in an article yourself. But I'd be happy to review the article and the YouTube link if you email them to me. (I can put them YouTube videos into articles for you)
Place the keyword CodeProject within the <category> element that is the direct child of <channel>. This marks all items within the channel as consumable.
Place the CodeProject keyword within the <category> element that is the direct child of an <item>. This marks just the one item as consumable.
The article is quickly getting obsolete because the project kept on evolving, I'm keeping its content updated only in the "History" section, but basically I'm planning to rewrite it from scratch in order to reflect the project status. What would you recommend in this case? Do the rewrite in place, releasing an updated version of the same article, or writing a new one with a new title on the same topic (but with pretty different content)?
It says on my Technical Blog Feeds page that blogs are polled for new content every hour, yet it hasn't polled the one I posted three days ago (Friday 9 November), though it is tagged "CodeProject" as per instructions, and is on top of the feed[^].
The previous article, posted October 17th, also went unnoticed for many days. Neither then nor now did clicking on the the "Update now" graphic do anything.
Would be grateful to know if polling frequency has been turned way down, or if there is somethign I can do to speed things up.
I noticed A deeper look at the Intel IvyBridge Ultrabook is really just a few sentences and link to an off-site article. Looks like it got edited/approved by Smitha Vijayan. Does Code Project really allow "articles" that are just links to off-site articles? I know that blogs can be imported, but that's not the case here... it's really just a link to another article.