|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Is it just me, or is there now no way to *modify* and article from the article's page?
Since it got edited, you cannot directly modify it. Get the HTML, update it, and send it to submit@codeproject.com - and an editor will update the article. You may get the outlaw programmer expedited processing - so your update may come up quicker than for other people 
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Since it got edited, you cannot directly modify it.
Does anyone other than me have a problem with this?
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Get the HTML, update it, and send it to submit@codeproject.com - and an editor will update the article. You may get the outlaw programmer expedited processing - so your update may come up quicker than for other people
That seems to be a bit of a long way around, and directly consumes someone else's time. Kinda clunky if you ask me...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
You can request that an article be left in the unedited section - that allows you to edit it yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Does anyone other than me have a problem with this?
Well, 'edited' means that an editor has gone over it for spelling errors and formatting. If the site allows you to go back and change your article, doesn't that devalue what 'edited' means ?
Perhaps a change suggestion for the site would be, you can edit an article, it then becomes 'unedited', in the sense that an editor needs to look at it again ? I'm not sure how our other business rules would work with that, but it seems like another way to do it, perhaps.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
|
|
|
|
|
It makes perfect sense to me that it would be changed back to unedited, but at the same time, maybe there should be a switch for people that have a proven track record of decent grammar/spelling so that it wouldn't necessarily have to become "unedited" again. That would possibly reduce the load on the editors...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: It makes perfect sense to me that it would be changed back to unedited
Sure - my response is not official, I'm just commenting on how it seems to me. I don't know why it works the way it does.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: maybe there should be a switch for people that have a proven track record of decent grammar/spelling so that it wouldn't necessarily have to become "unedited" again
Sure. That's obviously more complex than the system as it's written, so you can see why that sort of thing was not done initially, but it may well be a valid suggestion for a change to the site.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: maybe there should be a switch for people that have a proven track record
I agree, and I think it would benefit everyone by decreasing article turnaround time.
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds a lot like the good old "classic" CMS workflow:
Article checked in (uploaded).
Article approved and deployed (deployed).
Article edit (check out - move back to Unedited).
Article approved and deployed (deployed).
There you go, for all those who wondered what Windows Workflow Foundation was for, there's a classic simple example
Arthur Dent - "That would explain it. All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world."
Slartibartfast - "No. That's perfectly normal paranoia. Everybody in the universe gets that."
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Every time I post a message, I get the "Hear that crunching sound?": error, but when I try to re-submit, the site tells me that the message has already been posted.
Thats been happening to me alot, but only ion FF
|
|
|
|
|
I think, as Chris told, it is a server hardward issue.
You may be reaching the server during its Peak Load time. Try during an alternate time. The 'Crunching Errors' have significantly come down nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to be fixed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting! Looks like someone has managed to sneak a way to vote 0.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
And now it has a score of 0.62....
|
|
|
|
|
The basic issue is a lack of server-side validation. Any numeric value you send back in the field when submitting the form will be applied to the article's score. The manner in which the value is sent to the server is not really an issue. I can send Chris my Javascript code, but I doubt he'll need it in order to make a fix.
|
|
|
|
|
This is one example of depending on clientside code without much serverside validation. We need to ensure that we redundantly check the data on the serverside also.
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's an example of a dumb mistake.
' Two choices: throw out out-of range votes or just clip to valid
' Let's be nice and clip to valid...
if (vote > MaxVote) Then vote = MaxVote
...
Anyone pick the mistake? Yeah, how about a "if (vote < MinVote)..." 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How about this one:
if (vote < MinVote) Then vote = MaxVote;
That'll teach them for trying to circumvent the site's original intent...
BTW, how's it going regarding article voting changes? 
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Looks like someone has managed to sneak a way to vote 0.
Also to vote a -ve number (the article's rated -431 now).
|
|
|
|
|
Programmers... 
|
|
|
|
|
J. Dunlap wrote: Programmers...
I think you can vote 0, or -ve, but it won't let you vote > 5 (that check may already be in place).
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the page source, it has some suspicious looking stuff in it.
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I have recently noticed this little bug after clearing out all my cookies. The 'latest articles' page has a few options at the top like category and age. When selecting these options and clicking the 'update listing' button, the page will refresh to show the new preferences/list. But when leaving and returning to the page, the options have reverted back to their original state ( the list too ).
Before I cleared my cookies, that page would always display my prefered listing.
At various locations across the whole site there are options and preference settings. Wouldn't it be easier to place them all in one location, like the 'my settings' page. This way we could just select a few options, update the cookie, with no need to worry about loading a page - selecting options - and reloading again.
|
|
|
|
|
Which browser?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
