|
hello,
At submit new article page, when click upload files button, the browser jump to error page and display "Controller, Action or Item Not Found".
I don't know where is the problem.
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please email me sean@codeproject.com the files? I will give it a try.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's spam.
This space for rent
modified 22-Feb-17 19:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
In my article, the image link changed after publish, hence its not displayed in the article, please help to resolve this issue.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you still have the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
So - I have an article that isn't ready for general consumption but I'd like a couple of folks I know to take a look.
Is it possible to give them a link to the article in draft state, or should I just email the content by copy-paste?
|
|
|
|
|
If you leave your article as pending then, as long as these readers have enough permissions, they should be able to view it when you share the link.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Everyone,
I am johnwiliam i am new to this forum here i hope that everyone doing verywell, you all are raising this type of questions for that getting lot of information to all... really its very helpfull to all, thanks for sharing and raising this type of informatic topics.
|
|
|
|
|
If you'd like I can also change the status to an InReview status, which means only people with the link could see it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Perfect - that works - thanks muchly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup - I did that when I got your answer.. will put it back to draft as soon as my cleverer colleague has taken a look.
|
|
|
|
|
I've just stumbled across an article and a tip with identical content. Both posted by the same user, one day apart.
Non-Kernel Semaphore[^] (Tip, first posted 31st May 2012)
Non Kernel Semaphore[^] (Article, first posted 30th May 2012)
There isn't a "repost" reporting option available.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I bet there were article editor problems or site problems that day that led to this. I've removed the tip. Thanks for the catch
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
This article[^] links to Aspose Cells for .NET and while there's a free trial, good gravy, look at how expensive it really is[^]. To my mind, this one shouldn't be present but I await the judgement of those wiser than me.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Smells like spam to me.
If it was comparing the commercial option to one of the[^] many[^] free[^] alternatives[^], then it might be acceptable.
But as it stands, it reads like he's been paid to promote the tool. And if I recall correctly, it wouldn't be the first time we've seen spam for that product.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
In some cases if it's an author who has written a few articles already, it might be OK. But I've seen enough instances where authors seemingly post an article on their own, only to learn that a company hired them to do so. So generally, if you see an article on a third party product or service that doesn't specifically solve a problem or offer a workaround to a known or discovered issue with that third party product or service, give it a wary eye (in the case of experienced authors). For first-time authors, we will typically remove the article.
Even though this author has been around awhile I have opted to remove this one. Thanks for the catch.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Ewington wrote: or first-time authors, we will typically remove the article.
Even though this author has been around awhile I have opted to remove this one. Thanks for the catch.
Not only he has been around long enough, he has been named a couple of times in the S&A Watch if I recall correctly. It seems he likes to explore the limits
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Have to say I never really understood this whole third-party\commercial product thing. Yeah I get the whole paid-to-promote thing and why those articles are removed, but to pick an app at random (Outlook) I see many articles on Outlook yet that's a commercial product that isn't free. There are loads of articles on iTextSharp and for commercial use that isn't free either. Just seems a bit arbitrary that you can do articles on some commercial products but not others.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think I'm going to be able to draw a definitive line in the sand for every case scenario, but generally, 1st party products are fine, or what a typical developer in the space would have access to are fine. Then it comes down to more of a judgement call. How many articles has the author posted before? What is the tone of the piece? Is the author attempting to fill a hole that exists in documentation or a known problem? How many times have we seen this particular product or company put up a suspicious article or blog entry or press release such that it seems like a spammy agenda?
Maybe sometimes we get it wrong, but on more than one occasion we've removed a suspicious looking article written by a person who doesn't appear to be associated with a company, then had a marketing rep from that same company contact our sales team and ask, "why did our article get deleted?" Which means we err on the side of caution.
It's also possible there are articles out there we simply haven't caught yet.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
On CP: [^]
On the web: [^]
Note: the first article in this series has no downloadable code; the second article has a link to the author's PDSA site to a download file.
The author says these are blog entriws in the text (on CP), but they appear as articles, here.
imho, both articles do little beyond showing you code examples of the type that are typically found in MS documentation, and there is little value re-posting them on CP as articles.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
