|
Thanks for your question. Nothing wrong with stepping on people's shoes when it comes to writing articles. If a topic gets covered to death and doesn't need to be written, that's the only crime and that doesn't sound like the case here.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
If I were to write an article, how much time could I expect to spend writing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Well this depends on how long your article is and how much text you have to write.
A lot of useful info you will find in the Submission Guidelines[^]
Some important steps from my point of view:
- prepare your code (clean and format it)
- check your code for 3rd party sources which I always list in credits/references
- make a plan about the possible contents of the article and how many chapters it should have
- make some pictures (which can say more than thousand words)
- start writing chapter after chapter
- use the preview feature and check the output for errors, typos and formatting issues
- upload your code and include it to the article
- add the most important code parts to the related chapters
- preview and check it again
- loop until all chapters are ready
If the source code of your project is already finished, then I would say for an article which takes 8 or 10 minutes to read, the "producing of the article" may take between 2 and 4 days in total.
|
|
|
|
|
... and I can not view it again. there's just "[Article:5383311]" written. please get it back, soon, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your message. I'm sorry, but the article is unrecoverable. Did you submit it? Or could you otherwise reproduce the steps that lead to this?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no ive been working a week on it. I submitted some hours ago and saved multiple drafts before. I am totally demotivated now to write anything else on this platform
|
|
|
|
|
You should download the article template and create it offline.
|
|
|
|
|
It appears on my list of tips/tricks, but when I try to click on it, I get a black background with the following text:
Quote:
Ticket:
Error: An error occurred in this page. The error has been recorded and the site administrator informed.
Abort, Retry, Fail?_
I uploaded the article the 17 May 2024, it's not a big deal to do it again, but I don't want to leave strange links in house...
What should I do?
Thank you all in advance...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid that page means that article is gone gone, and no one can recover it. I am very sorry.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
No problem, I'll write it again then...
It was a super short tip...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for asking. These aren't quite the kind of articles we're looking for at CodeProject. Tempting though, you're a great author ... The issue would be that less good authors would look at the style of article, and think it was OK to post their own.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
In my latest Tip which was updated some hours before, there was a problem with the images.
Then I made another update and replaced 1 image and added 1 new image.
The preview was looking really good.
Then I clicked on publish.
But on viewing the new version, the images for the Context Menus are wrong again.
WPF DataGrid with RichText, RowDetails, Grouping, Filter and more![^]
Correct would be:
extracted-image-1.png => Context Menu of Data Grid
extracted-image-2.png => RichTextBoxFormatBar
|
|
|
|
|
So under the heading Context Menu, we're looking at the first two images there, correct?
If you refresh the page, do they look OK?
Also, when updating them, did you rename the image filenames?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I did not name or rename any images.
I use the "paste from word" button to insert images to the article.
But today the released article is different to what I saw last night.
Update with F5 does not change anything.
TODAY the 1st image below Context Menu is OK.
The 2nd image below Context Menu (and below "The RichTextBox on the RowDetails has it's own ContextMenu.") is WRONG and could be removed
(but not deleted because it's the one that belongs to "RichTextBoxFormatBar" where it appears a 2nd time).
That could be the easiest way to fix that issue, if you can agree.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I understand. I've updated the article. Please let me know if all is well now.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Well done, thank you
|
|
|
|
|
If I make a neat tool that I think adds a lot of value for Visual Studio programmers, and that I do not want to charge people money for it --- rather, in order to make the world a better place, I just want to fling it out there, along with its source code and corresponding GitHub repo, would it be acceptable to write a The Code Project article about it, describing why I wrote it, its feature set, how to use it, and such?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CodeProject is more about knowledge-sharing rather than it is tool sharing. I actively remove articles deemed as tool-sharing from the site. The proper way to post this would be to write an article about your tool. Share the code, how it works, why you made it, what you learned along the way, interesting bits of the full source code, explaining concepts around the code and why you made those decisions. Basically turning your tool into a class lecture and explaining it in a way that the whole class can understand.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Sean,
Quote: Share the code, how it works, why you made it, what you learned along the way, interesting bits of the full source code, explaining concepts around the code and why you made those decisions. Basically turning your tool into a class lecture and explaining it in a way that the whole class can understand.
Maybe I was not communicating well enough, but that was exactly what I was intending to do. The only issue is, each tool has over 100 Visual Studio projects as part of its solution and is written in a production-level fashion. I assume a multi-part article series would also be acceptable, so I did not have one really huge article covering the gamut of the effort. Would that also be acceptable?
Regards,
Brian Hart
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it depends on how many multi-part we're talking. Five parts is OK. I'd say that's a good and reasonable maximum. Otherwise huge article is totally appropriate. Members even seem to like it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Like the subject line says, that is my question.
I've been a member and author on the Code Project for 24 years. I do not want to do anything wrong, but I think it is important to try and get eyeballs if I feel I've published something that is going to be of interest to the community.
Regards,
Brian Hart
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone who publishes something online wants/needs eyeballs. I certainly appreciate and understand that. But I think the method by which you try to get those eyeballs matters.
The Lounge is not meant to be a place to share your recently published article. Doing so could be construed as an ad, which is against the Lounge's policy.
If you've published something that is going to be of interest to the community, the content will speak for itself.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Well, consider the situation where everyone who wrote an article, including the hundreds of spammers, decided to promote it in the Lounge.
|
|
|
|