|
There was a jobs forum here a while back. It closed due to lack of activity.
|
|
|
|
|
Could be because a prospective employer could see how much time we waste on here? 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Never I saw as much truth as in this post. 
|
|
|
|
|
In my settings, my membership/Account type is Standard Member Account, but it is not reflecting the same in my forum posts. It is showing a group icon.
thank you.
Link to screenshot1[^]
Link to screenshot2[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed.
Now if you could also fix your profile customisations to make your profile page readable again, that would be great.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Chris, Thanks a lot for such quick response. I will do the same immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Use standard website to upload image etc as site like you have used contains ads which are NSFW.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
My Apologies.
Thanks Rohan for bringing this up. I will keep this in mind next.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
