 |
|
|
Hi there!
I have changed only the title of a question and it was automatically marked as a 'minor change', tried it with two questions. A title change is not a minor thing in my opinion, it could mean that the question is something different now and would be good to show it in the revision history.
Hope you like the suggestion. 
/M
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm.. but if there were an actual change in the gist of the question wouldn't the content need to change as well? I.e. if the title changes but not the content would it not make sense to have it marked as a minor change?
I'll bring it up with the team in any case.
Oh we will be showing the title in the revision history at some point. Haven't had a chance to get to that task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote: if there were an actual change in the gist of the question wouldn't the content need to change as well?
The problem lies exclusively with new members, where there are titles like "I need help" or their problem is actually a different issue which you'll find out after some explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True. What about if someone changes the title from "I need help" to "I needz help"? I was thinking that if more than 30% of the title's content changes then we'd mark it as a non-minor change. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No preferences on my side, perhaps I would opt for whatever is easier to implement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well simply identifying a change in title and marking it non-minor would be easiest to implement but I think we'll go the 30% route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there!
I wanted to ask, was it previously discussed to force a question as being answered... if it has (reasonably) good answers? I have seen there are QA which have not been closed as answered by the original poster. Maybe because he is still waiting for more answers (which is perfectly fine in my opinion), maybe he has forgotten to accept an answer. Here is an example of the later category, which probably can be "forcefully closed": http://www.codeproject.com/Questions/68682/How-to-know-the-user-Click-OK-on-MessageBox.aspx[^]
This is just an idea. Not sure which problems arise from implementation, I could imagine something like this: Members in gold category can accept an answer (can not be there own, after minimum of 24h hours since posting question, only if the original poster has NOT accepted one). Like the voting system a "forceful accept" will result in a comment under the answer (so it is clear that not the original poster has accepted it). Well, you could just close all questions automatically after a certain period of time, but this suggestion is only about closing questions with good answers.
Hope this helps.
/Moak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for bringing this up. We've been planning to rework this functionality for some time and even had a few discussions around it. Members just aren't using it. Either they just don't want to be bothered or don't understand the system.
We were actually thinking of removing the "Accepted answer/alternate" functionality altogether. Instead we'd have the idea of "Best answer" or "Viable alternate" (wording undecided) for questions and tips/tricks, respectively. An answer/alternate would be marked as such if it had at least 2 votes with a rating >= 4.
So basically the OP would no longer be responsible or even have the ability to mark their question as accepted. It'll be decided by the community on votes. This has the advantage of allowing newer answers to overtake an older slightly less accurate answer.
In fact, I'd like some more input on this from the CP community so I'm going to repost this at Site Bugs/Suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the ongoing slaughter of spam answers and such it is starting to become difficult to read answers (actual answers)
See here for a example[^]
There are 2 actual answers then a couple deleted ones then again some actual ones and again some deleted one's.
Makes it all very hard to read and follow the thread.
Can't you just not show deleted answers?
Or in case that's not possible although I don't really see the point in keeping them there, can't you push deleted answers to the bottom of the list?
[EDIT]
Seems like CG's idea might be better.
He suggests make a separate group (collapsible) for the deleted answers.
See here for his post[^]
[/EDIT]
modified on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 4:19 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We'll no longer show deleted answers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try hard to get that bug fixed today. But we probably don't want to go the route of showing deleted answers again..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice to have the
Ask a Question | All Questions | Unanswered | My Posts | Help
buttons at the bottom of the page as well
When a question has a lot of answers there is a lot of scrolling to do to get to the final answer and then all the way back up to go back to the list of questions (I know the back button would work as well but still... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest I'm not sure that would add much value. It'd also be a problem for small pages where you'd end up seeing the links twice (without scrolling).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
true
Just mentioned it because I was reading a rather long question (15+ answers) so when I wanted to go back to the list it was a lot of scrolling
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
In Code project, we have source code attached as zip files with article.
Most of the time we need to see the code along with the article to understand it.
Majority of time due to network restriction, you cannot check the source code (download restriction).
So is it possible to view source code in web browser using something like this?
Customized Solution & Project Explorer in .NET using C# and Windows Forms[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I guess CodeProject has provided this utility......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I had a look at the Q&A pages, and knocked up a mock page from a snapshot of this question http://www.codeproject.com/answers/64382/virtual-method.aspx[^]
The mockup image can be found here; http://www.dave-auld.net/images/stories/dropzone/cp_qa_page.jpg[^]
Here are a list of the page changes and suggestions; There was alot of dead areas on the page so it was really to neaten things up and standardise the layout;
1) Moved the Tags to under the Question Title: Reader can immediately see what areas the question relates to.
2) Move the voting bar below the answer count/votes/views
3) Put a new tools bar below the question/above the edit history, removing the one from the right hand column, this has the benefit of also moving up the message area at the bottom of the screen, making it more likely to be noticed by users, particularly one those with lower vertical resolution screens.
4) Put a statement next to the Add an Answer button to make the user think are they answering a question or seeking clarification/making general comment
5) Used the same tools bar in the answer to keep the layout consistent
6) centralised the Answer vote status over the vote selection
7) Rotate the arrow of the "Your permission blah blah" to point at the question on the right column
8) Move the Question Title to below the horizontal line to clearly mark the question boundary from the buttons at the top
I think it looks better on the mockup, but its upto you and others at the end of the day!
CheersDave
Don't forget to rate messages!Find Me On: Web| Facebook| Twitter| LinkedInWaving? dave.m.auld[at]googlewave.com
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great ideas! I'm on-board with most of them but I'll talk it over with the team. Thanks a bunch!
Sorry for the late reply - been away for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that is an improvement. However, look at the actual content your example contains, and imagine that fitted on a programming forum, it would fit five times on the screen. The overall Q&A layout is just wasting screen real-estate, overburdened with graphics, and inefficient.
And I see no way a dialogue can be represented, the typical dialogue that starts with a question, then goes on asking for more information, presents a possible solution which gets rejected because something was left out of the question, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen several instances now of Add Answer being used for seeking clarification or asking more questions, rather than the message area at the bottom.
I think some more descriptive text needs to be placed above the Add Answer button along the lines of; "To seek clarification or discuss this question further, use the message area below. Add Answer should not be used for this purpose"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me about it. It's one of our top priorities to get this area resolved. We're doing two things:
1) Have a comments area immediately beneath each answer and the question. This way all comments or discussions will be targeted.
2) When the author of a question attempts to post an answer to his/her question they will be initially redirected to edit the question. There'll be a comment at the top explaining what happened and a link to actually add an answer after they acknowledge that they are not seeking clarification or making a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When posting a short answer to a question, you get a message saying "The content must be at least 30 characters."
That's fine, except that causes the question to disappear. Given that you are required to increase the size of your answer, it seems like it would be prudent to continue to show the question (for reference).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like some of the controls aren't getting binded on post-back. Thanks I'll add this as a high priority item.
|
|
|
|
|
![Java | [Coffee]](/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
Now with 24% more Twitter
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin