Article Writing

This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

6-Feb-16 23:37

This [^] looks like a blog, but I haven't seen anything in the revisions history to indicate a change. If it is not a blog then I think it should be a tip better than an article.

On the other side... downloads are offsite.

User already contacted.

M.D.V.

If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.

DotNetSteve4-Feb-16 10:07

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

4-Feb-16 10:07

Recently my article was deleted because of abuse of the third party category.

"Unfortunately, due to abuse, we have been forced to reconsider all of our third party submissions that demonstrate how to use third party products or services and look at each one more judiciously. The likely result is we will get rid of them all together."

I didn't tell people to buy any product.

I followed all the rules, do not work for DocuSign and put a lot of effort in making a nice presentation. Could you guys just put it under another category?

Thanks in advance.
Steve Contos

Steve Contos

Sean Ewington4-Feb-16 10:17

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

4-Feb-16 10:17

So what was happening was companies were hiring evangelists or technical writers to write articles that teach readers about or how to use their products. They would pay them and it would look on the up and up - the author didn't seem to have any apparent ties to the company and the company would get visibility for their product and links to their site. Then we would stumble across these posts, think they were fishy, remove them, and start hearing through our sales team that the marketing department of the company who's article we just deleted, "why can't we just post this one little article?" Big companies, small companies. And not one or two times. Many, many, times.

You're a long time member and I have no doubt you're just writing an article about how Docusign helped you in the hopes that it helps others. The sad fact is that if we allow your article, it becomes grounds to accept the articles of the aforementioned scenarios. It's not fair and we don't like to do it this way, but it got too hairy out there and the people who abused the system ruined it for everyone else.

Now, if people want to write an article about a problem they solved or a method they used to get around a problem they experienced in a third party product or service, that's more than welcome. A-OK.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

DotNetSteve4-Feb-16 10:31

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

4-Feb-16 10:31

another quick question... does this effect my ranking?

Steve

Sean Ewington4-Feb-16 10:39

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

4-Feb-16 10:39

If you mean reputation points, I think once the reputation history gets synced (I forget how often this happens) then yes, I believe it would remove the reputation points associated with that article. Apologies.

But it shouldn't affect your Silver status, as I'd estimate it to be around 100ish points.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

Sascha Lefèvre5-Feb-16 6:16

Sascha Lefèvre

5-Feb-16 6:16

So from now on, when an article like this (Decrypt SQL Server Objects - CodeProject[^]) appears in the moderation queue, it shouldn't be approved? Which report action should be taken?

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

Sean Ewington5-Feb-16 6:27

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

5-Feb-16 6:27

Report the article as "spam/abusive" but not the account, if you please. Although this appears to be free, is that the case? Then it's OK.

However, if it is associated with a paid component, no matter how tenuously, it is not OK. I've been meaning to get that little bit added to the submission guidelines.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter7-Feb-16 1:04

Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter

7-Feb-16 1:04

You may post an update about it so all moderators be aware of the changes...

Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

Nelek9-Feb-16 23:30

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

9-Feb-16 23:30

If you edit the guidelines, you might edit the sticky post in the Spam and abuse watch, so everyone get informed

M.D.V.

Nelek13-Feb-16 14:34

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

13-Feb-16 14:34

What about this?

Continuous Integration with Teamcity - CodeProject[^]
It seems to have a free version with less functionality and a professional one to be bought.

M.D.V.

Sean Ewington16-Feb-16 4:08

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

16-Feb-16 4:08

Thanks very much for the report. I've added it to the list.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

Nelek16-Feb-16 6:07

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

16-Feb-16 6:07

you are welcome

M.D.V.

Sascha Lefèvre6-Mar-16 7:39

Sascha Lefèvre

6-Mar-16 7:39

Sean,

a suggestion regarding the potentially to-be removed articles on commercial third-party products:

Maybe you can find a way to let them stay available to CP-members but not indexable by search engines — which should mostly achieve the goal of not serving as a free advertisement platform for the respective companies? Not admitting new such articles notwithstanding.

Alternatively maybe offering the removed articles as a time-limited download?

It just occurred to me that I'll soon need some helpful resources with DevExpress stuff and it would be a shame if the articles at that point have been removed without a trace Wink | ;)

cheers,
Sascha

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

Sean Ewington7-Mar-16 4:05

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

7-Mar-16 4:05

We have an alternative solution we'll be rolling out this week.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

DotNetSteve22-Apr-16 4:18

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

22-Apr-16 4:18

This is the second time your removing this article, I took your advice and changed to be more about my experience using the this tool as a Rest API.

My understanding was this article was removed because I had placed it in the Third Party tools section. I believe my edits and re-submission of this article NOT in the Third party conform to your what you wrote above "

Now, if people want to write an article about a problem they solved or a method they used to get around a problem they experienced in a third party product or service, that's more than welcome. A-OK.

"

This was written about an experience I personally had and how I used this to help. In addition I removed DocuSign from the title since this is really about using their Rest API.

There is definitely added value, I already received a question on using the tags to be positioned by searched string rather than position on a page.

Steve

Sean Ewington22-Apr-16 4:27

Re: This article was marked as deleted at 4 Feb 2016.

22-Apr-16 4:27

What I meant was "you overcame a problem inherent with the program or service." This latest article was still written in a "how-to-use" fashion.

So if during your use of DocuSign you encountered some problem and you figured a way around it, we would welcome an article on THAT.

I'd be happy to review an idea before you wrote an article. I don't want to do it after the fact. I'm sure you just want to help the community, which is great, but the tone of the article was too close to what I would expect in a paid Product Review, which would encourage less well-intentioned authors to abuse the system.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

DotNetSteve22-Apr-16 4:32

Yet another "how did this get through" post

22-Apr-16 4:32

Cool, let me re-work the article... My intentions are not to advertise for anyone, you can see with the other articles I have posted that is not the case. This helps me to have a central repository of my thoughts and experiences.

I'll reach out to you before I commit any changes to see what you think.

Steve

Richard Deeming4-Feb-16 1:21

Richard Deeming

4-Feb-16 1:21

Simple Simplex Solver[^]

Not an article, as Griff pointed out, and missing images. And yet it has still been approved. D'Oh! | :doh:

"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer

Mixing licences?

Nelek3-Feb-16 10:31

3-Feb-16 10:31

SQL Server Structure Error Handling - CodeProject[^] is published under CPOL here, but in the article there is a "chapter" with license agreement.

Is it allowed to have two? If one has different clauses as the other one... is that legal?

M.D.V.

Jochen Arndt3-Feb-16 21:28

Jochen Arndt

3-Feb-16 21:28

You should write a comment about that because you catched it. It looks like it would be sufficient to exclude (remove) the source code from the second block so that the sources are licensed under the BSD style and the article under CPOL.

Nelek4-Feb-16 5:46

4-Feb-16 5:46

I would say I wrote it. 2 Options... I was sleepy and aborted instead of posting or it got removed when approved

M.D.V.

Sean Ewington4-Feb-16 3:41

4-Feb-16 3:41

We have a BSD license available from the dropdown, maybe he missed it. I've emailed him about it and about the local download.

Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject

Nelek4-Feb-16 5:47

And another that got approved although...

4-Feb-16 5:47

Thanks Sean

M.D.V.

Nelek25-Jan-16 4:05