|
Please bug me - I apologise for taking so long to reply.
I've replied to your previous idea and am hiding the "add a solution" button for the author of a question,
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers! 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sascha,
fyi: some of us do frequently post reminders to OP's who post a comment/response as a solution asking them politely to re-locate the comment, and delete the not-a-solution. if I happen to see the content is not re-located in a day or two, then I may report the not-a-solution with the "Not a Solution" report tag.
but, in my case, I certainly don't this on a systematic basis.
"Automating" this is, imho, one of those "nice ideas" where the actual implementation might have unforeseen consequences ... or, ASFAIK, prohibitive implementation costs (time, labor, by CP staff).
A simpler way might be to just totally prohibit the OP from entering any solution on their own question ... but ... that goes "against the grain" of CP's history of allowing OP's to post a solution of their own. imho, allowing the OP to post their own solution is a good thing.
cheers, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill,
thank you for your feedback! I agree with you; OP's shouldn't be completely disallowed to post a solution of their own. But I didn't propose that, or at least I didn't intend to. My idea is to have a messagebox-popup in case they're attempting to do that, asking them if that's really what they want to do and pointing them to the alternatives (leaving a comment to a proposed solution or replying to another members comment); so that it will hopefully become the exception that a OP posts a solution that isn't one. This would then also mean that it's a one-time programming effort for the CP-staff.
cheers, Sascha
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I take your point, and, I am ashamed to admit that I assumed there already was such a MessageBox popped-up when the thread-starter chose to post a "solution:" so much for my site-knowledge, and reading comprehension, today 
I agree with you that a MessageBox for this purpose would be a very good thing.
thanks, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes,I saw some strange tag in some questions.. 
|
|
|
|
|
That was a nasty one.
Fixed, give or take an edge case (if you indent code by 4 spaces and then decide to wrap in pre you need to ensure the pre is on a separate line)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
My OCD ensures I always put my <pre> tags on separate lines.
|
|
|
|
|
 ![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
I always put my pre tags on a separate line and I wish the editor would too.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
tbhattacharjee
|
|
|
|
|
Tridip Bhattacharjee wrote: please do the necessary change for this web site book mark functionality
It's on the TODO.
Previously we didn't do what you are asking due to load issues. At this point, though, we can now do it, but it'll have to wait in the TODO queue.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The points are credited in account for after editing questions or answers but some times it's doesn't credited.don't know why ? 
Thanks & Regards
RajeeshMenoth
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason the first edit does not give you points. It has been like that for a long time.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Thank u for your valuable information. 
|
|
|
|
|
I vaguely remember that it depended on how much you change - more than 10% of the content was required, but that doesn't appear any more.
I do know that there are rep hunters out there that randomly edit questions/answers with meaningless changes to try and gain reputation
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
My congratulations with April 1st!
Second year in a row, I try to set a right data on my 1st of April articles, and fail in both cases, but by the opposite reasons.
This is the first case: Power Over IP: Testing of the First Experimental Facility[^]
This is the second one, today's: Some Programming Approaches to "Neuro-Linguistic Programming"[^].
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).
Note that "updated" is presently shown on only on the publication list page (http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/SAKryukov#articles[^]), and not on the article pages. It is inconsistent.
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.
- Anything else?
We have some inconsistency here, but making it consistent might be not enough. Can we be completely certain about timing. Any suggestions?
[EDIT]
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.
Thank you very much.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 1-Apr-15 13:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
April Fools!!
|
|
|
|
|
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".
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
For future reference, edit it offline and send it direct to Sean (in plenty of time), I'm sure he will help.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand you, thank you, but final corrections on the site makes a lot of benefits, final look and feel...
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Sergey, Consider that April 1 on CP may be a "moving target" by design.
cheers, Bill
«To kill an error's as good a service, sometimes better than, establishing new truth or fact.» Charles Darwin in "Prospero's Precepts"
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
