|
It seems to be working fine for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure why I am not able to see them. None of the articles in the Purgatory I am able to view.
Tarakeshwar Reddy
MCP, CCIE Q(R&S)
Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
|
|
|
|
|
Tarakeshwar Reddy wrote: Btw, the rating of this article is around 4.3 but why is it in the purgatory?
Because it is not an article, but a source code dump.
|
|
|
|
|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Because it is not an article, but a source code dump.
Ah ok. I wasnt able to see it, just went by the ranking of 4.3
Tarakeshwar Reddy
MCP, CCIE Q(R&S)
Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
|
|
|
|
|
This is what is the description of purgatory:
This section is for articles that readers have voted down but which we feel could be useful if given some attention. Enter at your own risk - but you may just find a gem.
|
|
|
|
|
When a new user subscribes show a window.alert("Please, NO PROGRAMMING QUESTIONS IN THE LOUNGE !");
|
|
|
|
|
Alerts would be very disgusting. Rather, it can auto-detect any technical keywords and then give a friendly DIV that shows a warning confirmation message. You can use AJAX to parse the text and come back with a response.
|
|
|
|
|
it would be better if we can mark them as programming question or inappropriate forum so that the admins can move it to relative forum 
(this will make their work easy)
It is Good to be Important but!
it is more Important to be Good
|
|
|
|
|
- Two of my articles have been moved, and when I reply to comments, I get a message about the article not being able to be found.
- 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.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
1. Fixing. Give it an hour or so.
2. We ordered more hardware to handle increased load and it should be here soon. I was actually prodding the guys today about it.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is there now no way to *modify* and article from the article's page?
http://www.codeproject.com/tips/FloatingPointEquality.asp[^]
"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: 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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
