|
Discussions
News
All
these 3 tabs are clean as white paper  Discussions and News can be empty but why All is. It suppose to show all.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Looks fine for me 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Select ASP.Net
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Works like a charm for me.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
haha, you must have fixed it. It wasn't working. Nothing was appearing when clicking on those tabs.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
What browser?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Opera 10.63, its working now.
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[M`UKs*$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
I understand that you need to accept ads that flash, shake, wobble and basically try and get our attention, after all hamsters need feeding.
But please, the Insider ad flashing in the Lounge is just plain irritating. One of the reasons I like the site is I can come here, get a chuckle read some interesting info and am subject to limited flashing ads.
Didn't you do a survey on these?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Which ones in particular? Let me know and I'lllook into getting replacements.
I hate annoying ads too.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom left in the Lounge, underneath the GIT link.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
The CodeProject Insider ad? That's ours. I can tone it down if it's a problem.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'll second the motion. It might not be blinkier than some of the page top ads, but it's more annoying since it doesn't get scrolled out of sight in a few seconds.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Is there some way to tell who has approved an article for publishing? I've seen quite a few cases where comments have been added asking the author to make improvements, or where the article was not deemed appropriate, yet it shows up as approved anyway. Could we trend who is making approvals?
It's not a perfect world and there will always be issues but at least having someone take, or be forced to take, responsibility for their actions I think would improve the quality of the articles being approved and the site in general.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
So, we're seeing approvals not improvals. Sorry, I just liked the improvals word.
|
|
|
|
|
I seldom look at articles-needing-approval; when I do I often see messages with good suggestions have already been added while the article formally often also satisfies the requirements for approval as stated in the legend. Since all messages and votes are (used to be?) discarded upon approval, this poses a big dilemma: approving it would be strictly correct, however it may not be the best way to go.
A few times I've proposed a more elaborate approval scheme requiring a number of points of some kind, where those points get gained and lost by reader actions, making it (1) impossible for a single person to approve an article and (2) harder to get approved once some down-votes have been cast.
I also think removing messages is wrong in general, and especially here as approval isn't even an edit operation, so whatever was said in the messages is still as valid as it was before approval.
|
|
|
|
|
Removing messages is the fair thing to do for authors who have undergone several revisions under the sometimes less-than-kind suggestions of moderators. Being able to have their article start off with a clean slate helps them enormously.
The comments of the moderators are extremely valuable, but they will often be extremely out of date if revisions have been made and so become detrimental.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I understand messages could become stale and irrelevant when the article gets edited, I'm not sure removing them automatically is the right thing to do. I for one am not going to type the same message again if the author has ignored my recommendations on his first edit (and I would like to read my message again when looking at an updated article). Maybe keeping them visible to their author and the article's author is the right thing to do.
As I said, the fact of approving an article does not modify the content, and IMO should therefore not remove messages (assuming it does right now).
|
|
|
|
|
This is already on our TODO list. I agree it would be helpful
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You guys recently (like 3 weeks ago) made a change to the Latest Article page where both visited and unvisited links show up in blue. It used to be that visited links showed up in purple. Having them both the same color makes it really difficult to see what articles you've already looked at.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading the exact same thing some time back (probably in last 7 days only!), but I couldn't find it. Was you the one who reported/requested the same thing earlier? Did you deleted the earlier one and reposted today?
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid it has returned to the unfixed state of affairs, probably driven by the popular dislike of magenta everywhere...
I think you need a distinct CSS class for followed hyperlinks, to be used only on pages that would really benefit, i.e. where the links themselves are the purpose of the page, as in Latest Articles. And not in navigation panes or message forums, where the links are rather used like buttons.
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the trick is handling the inconsistency in handling CSS selectors between browsers. I'll go back to tried and true (and tedious) methods and be more selective in which links are to be marked as 'visited'.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, have you considered having three grades of browsers: A-grade you want to get everything correct on, B-grade you support while accepting some minor defects, C-grade you don't worry about?
or is it just impossible to get the most popular top-3 (I'd guess IE, FF, Chrome) to agree on just anything and into A-grade at the same time?
in fact I would suggest you include something about such intentions in some kind of a public mission statement...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
