I'm not sure whether it has something to do with Markdown, but the code display in Q&A seems to be acting strangely. Take a look at please help error:::null pointer exception[^]. The <pre> tag in the middle of the code does not exist in the source, if you click on Improve question, but attempts to make it go away just make it jump about randomly.
suppose i login and go to any article page and click on book mark button. now page is book marked. after few days again i go to that page then i can again make that page book mark which is wrong. once a page has been book mark by user Mr X then Mr X should not be able to make that page book mark rather a book marked symbol should appear on that page as a result Mr X should understand that he book mark that page already.
please do the necessary change for this web site book mark functionality.
The code in C# 2X8 ARRAY Placing Similar Items[^] appeared to have "accidentally" fallen into markdown for part of the code.
It was so ugly, that I tried to improve it with a regular pre tag set.
Now, it shows a <pre> tag in the middle of the code (that doesn't appear when editing!)
and HTML entities in the pre region are not behaving as entities, they are appearing as plain text.
I.e., an < in the editor, to represent an < still shows as < in the actual page.
Perhaps something to specifically indicate that markdown is being used in the posting would be good, or else defaulting to code for anything indented could get pretty ugly...
A positive attitude may not solve every problem, but it will annoy enough people to be worth the effort.
First time, I tried to publish it exactly on April 1st, but the editing shifted it to 2 April 2014, not even my editing, but in the moderation (I wonder why). So it says:
Title: 2 Apr 2014
First posted: 30 Mar 2014 (but I think it wasn't the actual post, only the first draft),
Updated: Updated: 2 Apr 2014.
Taking this experience in account, I published today's article in advance, on 30 March, in order to make last change today. But now, the behavior is different: edition don't shift the title date, and, even worse, presented timing incorrectly reflects actual edition time:
Title: 30 Mar 2015
First posted: 30 Mar 2015
Updated: 30 Mar 2015 (plain wrong: it was updated today).
Apparently, there are more characteristic time marks in the life cycle
Creation of the article on the site, not published, not open to the public. Probably it does not need to be shown.
First saved draft, if any ("Save" instead of "Publish"). It may be important to see for possible legal/priority issues.
First time publication of the article, open to all readers. Important.
Last modification time. Also important.
We have some inconsistency here, but making it consistent might be not enough. Can we be completely certain about timing. Any suggestions?
Also, some detail such as votes number (probably some other statistical figures, I don' remember exactly) are shown inconsistently between the article page and article list page. Of course, I cannot reproduce it . Obviously, this situation changes with time, but the inconsistency can be seen most of the time now.
You are, too, invited to have some fun with me, and especially participate in the article discussions.
As to the fools… In our folk tradition, there is a saying "The fairy tale is lie, but it has a hint, the lesson for the brave guys".