|
BillWoodruff wrote: Or is CodeProject duplicating the questions
Nope.
BillWoodruff wrote: Or, do we just have a lot of double-posters
I'd have to assume this is the case.
They are separate systems
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If they're in QA, are you sure they're different questions, and not the same question tagged as both "C#" and "C#5"?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi CP
I'm wondering why ToDoList[^] now appears in Web Development > Applications and Tools when it's a desktop application that used to reside in Desktop Development > Applications and Tools (which no longer exists)?
Rgds
|
|
|
|
|
You're correct - there is no Desktop counterpart to that section, and you've touched on a huge issue we've been discussing here for a few months:
Do we even need sections and chapters anymore?
Most people search or find articles via links or Google searches. The views of the section pages are so minimal as to be an error bar on our graphs. Our aim was to have articles live in Topic sections so that you could see all the desktop, or web, or mobile etc articles in one place, but articles don't necessarily live only in one place. The taxonomy has become more and more out of date, confusing to new players, and limiting.
So: instead of sections why not simply have home pages per tag. Hit the "desktop" tag and you get all the desktop articles. Hit the "Mobile" tag or the iOS tag and you get all those articles.
Way simpler. Thoughts?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Sensible idea. If I am looking for articles on a specific subject thenm I tend to find Google is quickest.
|
|
|
|
|
As a personal opinion I see no use for the sections. I usually search by defining the most important keywords for what I want to find and from that point of view the sections bring no aid since they are too 'wide'. I believe that searching by using tags would be much better option. However, I wouldn't limit the search to a single tag. Instead I'd let the user to define all the tags needed for the search.
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea, but does it need to be mutually exclusive?
Why not make the sections and chapters dynamically created from existing tags.
You should even tell people to add tags in the order of preference to make it more useful. After all, some people add every possible existing tag to get a better hit ratio.
I have more ideas if you want them.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Why not make the sections and chapters dynamically created from existing tags
That's essentially what would happen.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: You should even tell people to add tags in the order of preference to make it more useful
Nice idea but you can't build consistency around this because people are extremely inconsistent about tags. We do have a system that trims, intelligently, the tag list provided.
I'm open to more ideas. Sean and I have been nutting this one out for a while and we're about 95% there.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris
Given that 'tools' are a small sub-section of this site I agree that very simple compartmentalising is probably required.
However, I personally only ever use compiled tools so I definitely don't want to see framework-based 'scripted' solutions (eg. Perl or PHP) appear when I'm looking for 'tools'.
As for accessing source-code I don't have a strong opinion.
So perhaps it is time for a rethink on how info is accessed on CP...
FYI, I didn't get notified of your (or anyone else's) response to my question. Just a heads-up.
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to mark this[^] as spam and accidentally hit the Approve button. there appears to be no way to reverse my mistake. I did go back in and was allowed to mark as spam but it seems that i have now marked it twice.
Also, would be nice to what others have marked it as.
|
|
|
|
|
No worries. I gots it. Thanks for letting us know!
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
You've locked this for editing, but I will fix it in 19 minutes. But if you're still in there, this is how you do it: Code Project Article FAQ[^]
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Whoop. Nevermind. Fixed 
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. It appears now.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I've doubled checked the Settings in my Account.
thanks, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please forward me one?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
can we write a select query[^]
I just reported this question and found that the some of the left most content of the page is not visible (or I'd say cut).
Though it's a minor bug to draw attention towards it.
I've seen this before (look weird) and you can check the page in the given link.
Hope you guys solve it 
Cheers
KR
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes (a lot of times in fact) questions closed, and I do agree that there is a reason for that...However may come a fourth person (after 3 agreed to close it), who has some valuable comment/solution to share...It maybe a good option to let him open it up (but only if there is a post!)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree.
I've faced this many times 
Cheers
KR
|
|
|
|
|
Total rep count of both "closers:" under 30k; only one of them has a 'gold' rep as "Authority:" [^].
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
It happens sometime that third one doesn't get displayed. Reports required to close the question is still 3. I may be wrong because i've stopped reporting anything in QA since 9th Oct.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning
|
|
|
|
|
I think Rohan is right - if the other people don't use the same closure reason, they won't appear in this list.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I like the highlighting of new messages, and of fora containing new messages. However, what has been irking me for too long is that I have no control over the definition of "new". I tend to stay logged in (but not with a browser open) and when the system decides it's time to log me in again "today" (or whatever triggers it), I lose the flags of what's new.
Suggestion: As a user option (profile setting?), allow the "new means since ...." timestamp to be sticky until the user updates it to "now". So I could come in, look around the stuff that has appeared while I was asleep, then click "OK I've seen that lot". Then next time I come in, I see what I consider new.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent suggestion. Added to TODO
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
