|
In Quick Answers, there are some tags around such as NoEffort, IAmLazy, GimmeCode ... In my opinion, tags should be objective and indicate what the question is about, and votes are to indicate the quality of the question, so these tags are useless and should be removed.
What do you think?
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
NoEffort and GimmeCode are useful tags. IAmLazy, less so - why do I get the horrible feeling I had something to do with that one?
|
|
|
|
|
I think they are objective, because they make it clear that the question is not valid. We can then save time by not reading them.
|
|
|
|
|
No we don't. Questions should be flagged, removed or edited to make them more appropriate. I see no value in shame-tagging.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't the tags free form, meaning you can tag it whatever you want? I agree that shame-tagging is wrong but you'll have a hard time enforcing this so long as tags are free-form.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
If a user has only a few (a bit less than one page) messages, the page scrolling is completely broken.
Example User:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Messages.aspx?fmid=10000000[^]
The navigation menu on the left is fully expanded and I guess I'm supposed to scroll down to the bottom of it. But as there are only a few messages, everytime I scroll down, some script or whatever always scrolls back up (or at least tries to do so while occasionaly just breaking the page layout) as it thinks there aren't any messages down there to display.
Tested on:
Windows 7
Chrome 39.0.2171.36 beta-m (64-bit)
Internet Explorer 11.0.9600.17358
modified 27-Oct-14 9:36am.
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed. I'll deploy the fix later today.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm having some issues submitting articles.
First time around was about a week or two ago. I've written an article (in firefox), and hit the submit button, a popup appeared asking if i'm sure i want to leave the page, and I got the "pending" icon on the article. Nothing happened for a couple of days, and resubmitting through firefox did nothing. Eventually, I tried it through IE (I know ... ), and it was approved.
This time around, I was working on IE, and the the editor crashed twice while writing the article. When trying to save, I got an error message, but going back into the article shows me the updated data.
I'm afraid I didn't take a screenshot, but it was a black page with some cute graphics, saying there was an error, and pointing to what it guessed was the issues (something about the state, and a very long string).
I've finished the article, hit submit, and depending on the browser i'm on, I will see the "pending" icon on the article, and a message saying my article is ready for a community review, and whether I want to view it or edit it.
I'm not quite sure the update was actually submitted, and there is no simple way to check it as far as I'm aware...
Anybody else experienced this issues, or have some suggestions about how to check if my article was actually sent for publishing or not?
A public/private queue of articles waiting to be processed ? Some less cryptic message ? what about the popup asking if i'm sure i want to navigate away upon submission? anyone you can email and ask this questions?
Cheers, and thanks in advanced.
|
|
|
|
|
_Noctis_ wrote: a popup appeared asking if i'm sure i want to leave the page
This has been fixed.
_Noctis_ wrote: the editor crashed twice while writing the article
Which version of IE?
What you saw was a ViewState error - something that we've seen pop up a few times since the latest update to ASP.NET. We're scratching our heads trying to understand why this is happening. Out of interest: how long did you have your page open before you hit the Submit button? Less than 20 mins? More than a few hours?
_Noctis_ wrote: A public/private queue of articles waiting to be processed
Your articles page[^] will show you all your articles, and in what state they are.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: This has been fixed.
That's great
Chris Maunder wrote: Which version of IE?
What you saw was a ViewState error - something that we've seen pop up a few times since the latest update to ASP.NET. We're scratching our heads trying to understand why this is happening. Out of interest: how long did you have your page open before you hit the Submit button? Less than 20 mins? More than a few hours?
IE 11.
Since I was editing the article, I would say maybe an hour? from there it got a bit messy and involved lots of cursing and praying that the changes weren't lost. If it happens again, I'll be sure to screenshot and copy paste the text. Since it didn't have anything useful on it (a link to report, or anything else), I think I hit the "back" button to see if it takes me back to the edited article.
Chris Maunder wrote: Your articles page[^] will show you all your articles, and in what state they are.
Hmmm ... in that main page, I can see no indication that it was updated or that it's pending.
If I go into the article[^]
I can see a : You have a version that is ready for approval by the community. Would you like to view or edit it?
If then click on the "View", I'll see the pending icon, but as I said, I doubt it's really pending.
Any suggestions on how to actually submit it so it'll go out of limbo land?
Having said that, are there any known browser compatibility issues ?
Cheers, and thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
That pending article is pending. Let me give it a boot to make it the latest version.
_Noctis_ wrote: Having said that, are there any known browser compatibility issues ?
No - it's purely a server side issue on our end. We'll dig in this week to see if we can sort it out.
Sorry about that.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Now it's been published and I've got an email about it.
Cheers.
I can try giving it a go on firefox/IE on a couple of articles and update if I have any issues
|
|
|
|
|
In light of recent post about closing QA questions with ease...
I suggest that QA questions with answers can not be closed by voting (only OP and CP Jedi Knight can delete it)...
In this case the one think that the question have to be removed will have to deal with the answer too...(maybe a message to one that votes will be help too)...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm predicting a wave of spam with answers. 
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
|
|
|
|
|
Spams we have anyway - and we can remove them by voting and then remove the question too...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
This defeats the purpose of having lots of people protecting the question board from spam, malicious posts and questions that show no effort in helping others to actually answer their question.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please send me an email and I will dig into the matter for you.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
This post is, partially, "inspired" by CHill's recent post here: "Up the number of reports to close a QA question?" ... but, I am starting a new thread because what I have to say is, I believe, on a different "level." I want to "frame" the issue of deleting QA posts by focusing on the broader context ... the thread as a whole including any comments, or posted solutions ... in which a given question appears.
This question exists in the context of the weird fact that deleted QA questions get stripped of their comments, and any posted solutions, yet continue to appear visible on the Forums: an absurdity resulting in wasted time for everyone: unless you consider reading "closed" notices fascinating  That structural flaw is something only CP staff can address. In this post I choose to ignore the related phenomenon of rapid down-voting of new questions by certain very "dominant" participants in the QA forums.
When a QA question is:
0. accompanied by some included code (not a "code-dump") that indicates the OP is struggling with writing code themselves.
|| 1. quite "fresh" in time
|| 2. by someone relatively new to CodeProject, or someone whose use of English indicates they have great difficulty writing it.
|| 3. has had meaningful questions posted as comments on the OP which ask for clarification, etc.
|| 4. has had solution(s) ... particularly those that include working code ... posted by other CP members with good track-records (note: I do not assume that rep-points, or MVP status, have any linear relation to "good track record" here, since I consider the entire CP rep-system ... except for articles ... "structurally distorted, and frequently abused").
Then, I believe that closing the question before it has had some minimum "life-span" is a dis-service to CodeProject.
If other CP members who are obviously making a contribution to QA by posting working code, and thoughtful comments, take their time to post on a thread: closing it not only discards that content, but it also creates a dis-incentive for the person who is truly trying to be helpful on QA.
For example, when a question like this one: [^] ... posted, apparently in the later night-time in the US ... is closed within hours of its being posted, it's possible the OP has not even had a chance, during their daylight hours, to review the question, and its comments, and any posted solutions. On this question I asked several questions in a comment, and would have, likely, posted code, if the OP had answered.
I took the trouble to post a working code solution for this question [^], which I experienced as quite a clear question in the sense the OP showed at least some code.
The dangers of ignoring context are expressed clearly to me in statements like this one by a frequent quick-question-closer:
"Worst case scenario, the user asks the question again and hopefully adds some detail." This completely ignores the fact that for many people, having a question removed may be experienced as a complete ... fill in the blank ... personal/intellectual rejection, breaking of face, insult, go-away-stay-away sign, etc. Note that those with their questions removed, to my knowledge, receive no notice of the question being closed, certainly no encouragement to post again.
I could go on further ... and farther ... but, if I haven't highlighted any issues that need to be addressed ... and which, if addressed, would result in a "better" CodeProject QA ... by this time, I'd say that what you have heard here is only burble.
« There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad. » Salvador Dali
modified 28-Oct-14 8:43am.
|
|
|
|
|
Even your comments are valuable and have a lot of truth in it I think it is wrong to mention people by name. That too can be " experienced as a complete ... fill in the blank ... personal/intellectual rejection, breaking of face, insult, go-away-stay-away sign, etc"...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
I take your point, and I think it was, at the least, less than diplomatic ... at the worst, downright rude ... to mention the good names of certain persons without, at the same time, mentioning that they make great contributions here to QA and CodeProject, and are people I respect.
I have removed the names from the title of the post, and the post.
thanks, Bill
« There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad. » Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
(Please see my proposal two post above...)
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
תפסיק לספר לה' כמה הצרות שלך גדולות, תספר לצרות שלך כמה ה' גדול!
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with the points you raised. The point about time zones and not having had the chance to review their own question is a interesting and a good one.
Perhaps we need a semi-rejected status for unclear questions, giving people some time to re-phrase their question without actually closing it, if no response within, say 24 hours of "rejection" it gets properly removed.
Also point 3 - actual question emerging in comments discussion - could we add a mechanism to transfer into the main body?
Alberto Brandolini: The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: Perhaps we need a semi-rejected status for unclear questions, giving people some time to re-phrase their question without actually closing it, if no response within, say 24 hours of "rejection" it gets properly removed.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who could sometimes be accused of having an itchy trigger-finger when it comes to poor-quality questions  , I've got some ideas on improving the situation:
Spam/abusive:
No change. The question should be deleted, along with any comments or answers.
Off-topic:
Close the question, but leave any existing comments and answers visible.
(If there are none, then remove the question.)
Repost:
The reporter should be required to provide a link to where the question was previously posted.
This must be a link to another QA question or a forum post on CodeProject.
The source item must have been posted earlier than the question being reported.
Links to the non-programming forums should be excluded, as the OP was probably told to repost in QA.
Unclear or incomplete:
Change the wording from "Closed" to "On hold" or something similar.
Prompt the OP to update the question with the missing details.
Leave all existing comments and answers visible, and allow new comments and solutions to be posted.
Users who have already posted a solution, can vote to re-open.
Anyone posting a new solution registers as a vote to re-open.
Any edit to the question re-opens it.
Not a question:
Not sure about this one. To my mind, this is usually the no effort, "send me teh codez ITZ URGENT" type questions, or the "here's a code-dump without any question" questions. Perhaps these should be treated in the same way as the off-topic questions - close them, but leave existing comments and answers visible.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
