We'll add it to Quick Answers soon, too, but for now here's a refreshed on Markdown:
We use GitHub flavoured Markdown with a couple of minor changes. Here's the gist:
Heading (or use #Heading)
And a Sub-heading (or use ##Sub-Heading
#### Use #, ##, ###, ####, ##### for H1 - H5 headings
Paragraphs are separated by a blank line.
A single newline will not cause a line break.
Leave 2 spaces at the end of a line to force a
Text attributes *italic*, **bold**, ``code``, --strikethrough-- are supported, as is <font color=red>HTML</font>.
// To insert code, use ``` before the code and then end with a closing ```.
int length = new string("A string").Length;
Hyperlinks are easy: [link to CodeProject](http://www.codeproject.com).
- pears and stuff
Heading (or use #Heading)
And a Sub-heading (or use ##Sub-Heading
Use #, ##, ###, ####, ##### for H1 - H5 headings
Paragraphs are separated by a blank line. A single newline will not cause a line break.
Leave 2 spaces at the end of a line to force a line break
Text attributes italic, bold, code, strikethrough are supported, as is HTML.
I've loved Ace[^] forever. It's one of those pieces of code which, when I first saw it in action, I couldn't even begin to think how they managed to do it in a manner that didn't bring the entire browser to its knees. But it works and it works very, very well.
I'm happy to announce that after a cold, lazy evening, a few Google searches, some beer[^] and a bit of swearing I've added Ace as the Source editor to our online WYSIWYG editor for articles.
Editing articles is meant to be a WYSIWYG affair but it's never the case with HTML. Us control freaks always want to dig into the markup and make it just right. With Ace we now have that markup syntax colourised which helps enormously when your article's getting a little long. On top of that we get line numbers, tag matching, and real-time validation.
Of course, if it's just not working for you there's an "ace" button next to the "Source" button that allows you to deactivate Ace if it's causing problems.
Our article voting system has evolved progressively. From one person, one vote to a weighted system, to requiring comments when down-voting, to a system that statistically removed junk votes, and then lately to a system that recognised that voting patterns are not only bell curves, but sometimes, legitimately, bimodal.
We have, to a large degree, been successful at suppressing malicious down-voting. Too successful, it seems, and the article voting system is now massively weighted towards up-votes rather than down-votes. To up-vote you merely click the 4 or 5 rating. To down-vote you need to add a comment, and if your down-vote doesn't agree with the majority then your vote may not be counted until a sufficient number of other members have likewise voted the article down.
So while up-voting is great in that it rewards authors and gives readers a way to say thanks, up-votes are bad when the up-votes are not votes based on the technical merit of an article but instead based on being the author's friend, family or colleague. Make it 50 friends, family members or colleagues and the vote for a given article is hopelessly invalid.
Basically: you can have too much of a good thing. It's easy to up-vote, hard to down-vote, and so the average article rating goes up and the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff goes down.
Starting today we're removing a barrier on down-voting. You are no longer forced to provide a comment when down-voting. We have our historical-based expectations on what will happen but will be monitoring the results closely just in case.
The change is effective as of now. As always we're open to suggestions and ideas to make it even better.
We have an occasional issue whereby an author will get their friends, family, colleagues, and random people off the street to vote for their article. Our voting system[^] is geared towards handling a case where lots of people say "this is great" and a few downvoters say "boo, it's crap" by filtering out the outliers on the assumption that the group vote rules.
However, when you have 50 low rep voters saying "it's a 5" and 5 high rep voters saying "this is terrible (or dangerous)" then we need to adjust. The change we've made is that if a certain number of high rep members vote a certain way then no votes of that given score will be filtered out. The naysayers will be allowed to nay-say and balance will be restored.
We are now checking every forum message for spam, and every message that even hints at being spam will be moved to a moderation queue. We won't nuke the message: we leave that dirty work to the top-rep members and protectors. Once the message is approved then it gets posted as a regular message. Those messages that are moderated by a member as being spam will never see the light of day.
We hope this helps with the current challenges, and we'll be extending this to Quick Answers and the Article system as soon as this beta test is complete.
We've had Google, Facebook and LinkedIn login for a while but we're happy to announce that you can now login to CodeProject using your Windows Live ID. Just click the Windows icon at the bottom of the signin dropdown (top right of each page) or the Windows logo on the sign up / sign in page.
We are continuing to enhance releasing api.codeproject.com, our API service for those looking to harness the data and services of CodeProject. Please dive in, check the docs and the samples, and get back to us with any issues or suggestions.
As part of this we're deprecating APIs that haven't been used for years. The specific APIs removed in today's update will be:
Our explorations and experiments with CodeProject are never ending and it’s with a certain sadness that we’re retiring Workspaces and CodeProject.TV.
The creation of new workspaces will no longer be possible from tomorrow, and Workspaces itself will close August 30. Your current Workspaces will be fully functioning until the close of Workspaces.
Workspaces was a framework designed to allow multiple applications to co-exist under the same roof. We started with a Git server (::GitMachine) and a Task management system (::Tasks), then added ::Docs for documentation. The beauty of the system was that since it was designed around APIs it was trivial to have it integrate with CodeProject.com, and trivial to have other applications integrate with Workspaces in turn. Each workspace would allow any number of any of the currently supported applications to be “hosted” within, so you can mix and match and build your workspace system to your liking.
CodeProject.TV was our foray into bite-sized, cost-of-a-coffee video tutorials. Members could create their tutorial, upload it and set their own price. We’d handle the transcoding, hosting, serving, backups, credit card processing and publisher payments, and free videos were just as welcome as pay-per-videos. A simple solution to a number of requests from our users.
We love both, but as we do each year we looked deep in our hearts at what we felt was best for our members and readers and decided that we’d better serve everyone by focusing our resources, and our attention, on CodeProject.com. This means a focus on our members, our articles, and our community. We’ll move our finger down to our next "what if…" item on our endless list of ideas and see where that takes us.
For those who purchased videos or workspaces we’ll be offering a full refund. Even if you tried workspaces for a month and then cancelled your subscription, even if you purchased and watched and downloaded a video we’ll refund your payment.
For those who have files in ::GitMachine or tasks in ::Tasks, we’ll be keeping these two applications running until Aug 30 but effective today no new workspaces can be created. All items in ::Tasks can be easily exported to Excel spreadsheets, and obviously all Git repositories can be cloned to other Git repos.
I kind of expected this with TV. Initially I liked the idea but then found it difficult for me to focus on few minutes of videos to get to some idea/solution compared to an article (with some copy-able code in it ). As you mentioned, onto next idea(s)
A retrospective on TV as well as Workspace would be helpful for future projects.
Maybe it's a generational thing, but I find it difficult to learn by video. I've done a few MVA courses, and while the content is solid, I feel I could learn 2 hours of video in 15 minute of reading, and retain more.
I see YouTube being used for all kinds of lessons and for the most part it doesn't work for me. The exception is very hands-on things like guitar lessons.
Maybe, video might be useful for more complex items or difficult to understand topics. async/await was confusing for me, and it was helpful for me to view few videos with the code samples downloadable at a different URL.
Nice idea in principal, but personally I found the TV was harder to watch than just getting the information from an article. I never used the Workspaces - I suppose that sums up why you're shutting them down.
It's a good thing to occasionally review what you are doing and cut the less useful parts in favour of improving the more useful parts. Well, and bravely done.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Codeproject.com is always being in my priority list of site for learning. Now i was transfer my all projects to workspace but... the idea of workspace with application like multiple GitMachines, Task and Document is really great and that make it easy to take decision to buy workspace.
Well, but if it is good for codeproject team then we will welcome that.
Be unstoppable to achieve the good you want to achieve.
Although I haven't been active in either venture, simply because I no longer code for a living, I really enjoyed both features. I was kinda looking forward to getting back into programming once I am retired in a few years, and had planned to utilize both.
I'm sorry to see them go, but I hope you'll continue to experiment!