|
Thanks, I just got an email from Chris. He said he fixed whatever was broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Thanks, I just got an email from Chris. He said he fixed whatever was broken.
Ah, he did that so fast that by the time I checked it, it was already fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello
Some time ago I posted an article using the submission wizard -which is a great tool by the way-. I have a few notes:
1- I uploaded a source. Then updated the source -before the article was editted-, and I used the submission wizard again to update the article. When I uploaded the new source file with the same name as the old the script kept giving me errors till I had to upload it with a different name. Later on I wanted to delete the old files only to be surprised that I can't Why not adding the delet option of files rather than letting them there until the editting?
2- When my article was editted some phrases were removed from it. That got me frusterated. Yes they were unrelated to the subject but they weren't inappropriate. I think the editting concept itself -Letting others change what I wrote the way they see fit-, is a bit disturbing, don't you think? I like to have my article uploaded with the wizard, and if any reader find anything in appropriate in it they should report it with the link!!
3- After the editting my article it can't be accessed by the wizard. Again it's bothering.
The bottom line, why not making article submission like web hosting?? You are hosting a page where the author show some content. Sure you'll put that page in the section you see fit. Also you'd remove any article you see inappropriate. Yet the author may have the write to directly upload to and/or edit his article without having to send it via email -which takes a LOT more time and effort-.
This would make article editting more like the forums. Still you will have more control on articles' content than you do on forums' content.
BTW:
Who edits your article??
Regards![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Nader Elshehabi wrote: When I uploaded the new source file with the same name as the old the script kept giving me errors
This could have either been a file system error on our part or a problem with readers trying to download your file while you were trying to upload and overwrite it. Thanks for the note on that one.
Nader Elshehabi wrote: When my article was editted some phrases were removed from it.
We try very hard to keep the original flavour of articles but we also try to ensure that the article reads well and will be presented in as professional manner as we can.
Nader Elshehabi wrote: After the editting my article it can't be accessed by the wizard
No, but instructions on the easiest way to send us your updates can be found in the notification email that was sent to you. The point of editing an article is to make sure it is correct and consistent with other articles. If we allowed authors to re-edit edited articles then they would have to go back into the unedited pool, which defeats the purpose of editing them in the first place.
Nader Elshehabi wrote: The bottom line, why not making article submission like web hosting??
Because that's not what CodeProject is about. The point of CodeProject is to provide a place authors can submit technical articles and have those articles edited and published in a consistent manner in order to allow our readership to have an easy time browsing and reading the articles.
|
|
|
|
|
from this thread[^]
I think it's necessary to have a "forceful reminder to think about the licence" when submitting code an article.
e.g. a dropdown with the following selections:
"Code Project Standards" (*)
<list of="" most="" important="" standard="" licences="">
"Custom Licence in Article body"
(*) if there is one. The article linked in the thread above implies that if there's nothing else mentioned in the article, the "article rules" carry over automatically. I'm not a legal expert, so...
Just an idea.
------------------
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist
|
|
|
|
|
We've been wanting to implement this forever but in a more formal manner. The trick has been finding the right wording for licences that will be palatable to everyone and will protect everyone (including us). We get one chance to do something like this and so we're spending an awful lot on lawyers to get the wording right.
Good timing for the whole discussion thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, am I right in interpreting this as meaning you're looking into revising the default CP license instead of just giving options like bsd licence/gpl licence/et. cetera licence?
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely
[edit: absolutely on revising the "default", but there is no "one size fits all" licence, nor should there be. We'll work to make licencing - correct and appropriate licencing for each article should the author wish to not use the default - easy]
-- modified at 9:03 Friday 18th August, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! I clicked on your message expecting it to say one thing, and I have to say I'm surprised.
I think it would be a huge mistake for CP to dive into the middle of this. If you want to, offer a list of commonly used licenses - BSD, GPL, LGPL, MIT, Apache, etc. - with a selection for "author's custom license", that would be fine - but if you're going to be mandating a single license for all submissions, I can see some people refusing to submit. I would hate to see anything that might cut down on quality submissions (and they are the ones where the author is most likely to have an opinion about the license, aren't they?).
Save the money, buy yourself a beer at Steele's Tavern.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I shot from the hip with my previous response. Please see the edited response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: will protect everyone (including us).
I think that is the hardest part.
A tailored licence is probably good to have, but I hope that it remains as "default among peers". One think that makes CP stick out is that the whole community is very relaxed about licensing -noone will "attack" you for whatever license you choose. (Well, almost  )
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Not to say anything wrong about the Editor's Choice[^]article, the article uses DrawDraw which as been removed since DirectX 8. Using DirectDraw and host of workaround things done by this article can be easily done by new apis provided by DirectX 8 onwards.
So this article is not the right first step (now) for DirectX learners to do 2d drawing.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
A good article doesn't always have to reflect the latest and greatest. We tend to pick good articles randomly whenever we see cool stuff. One of us has probably already picked a new contender for the MFC editor's pick by now...
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: A good article doesn't always have to reflect the latest and greatest
A good article is a good article if its old or new or outdated, but a editors choice article should be a usefull article. Whith the current editor's choice, anyone who is starting to learn directx will find himself going in the wrong direction and a good directx dev may not read that at all, coz its a introduction tutorial to directx and it introduces directx 7 stuff.
Yes, it is a good article, I have spend a lot of time on that article, but none of them is usefull with directX 8 onwards.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
... on home page for 'Last 10 Updates' and 'Latest Beginner's Articles', as is already done for 'Latest Best Picks'.
...cmk
Save the whales - collect the whole set
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Articles new enough to appear in the latest 10 haven't been there (in general) long enough to get a representative sample of unbiased votes. I'd rather present them on their own merits, unencumbered by a rating. At least for the 12 hrs they appear in that list.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Articles new enough to appear in the latest 10 haven't been there (in general) long enough to get a representative sample of unbiased votes. I'd rather present them on their own merits, unencumbered by a rating. At least for the 12 hrs they appear in that list.
A good point, however the 'Latest Best Picks' shows the number of votes.
I'm suggesting you leave it to the user to determine if a score of 2 with 3 votes has any meaning.
To me showing the score and number of votes _is_ unbiased.
From what i've seen, articles that receive a 1 or 2, or a 4 or 5 with only a couple of votes generally aren't too far off the mark.
I made the suggestion based on that observation; having gone in to look at many articles over the years, only to see they were useless and noticed they would have a 1 or 2.
...cmk
Save the whales - collect the whole set
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice to have the ability to fold a <pre> block so that lengthy runs of code can be bypassed by the reader if desired, and un-folded by clicking on a '+' or an image.
|
|
|
|
|
I second that.
...cmk
Save the whales - collect the whole set
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does it make me nervous when I see you post that? 
|
|
|
|
|
Because you know how much i enjoy scripting. 
What's scary for me is stepping back and realizing that i've been working 12-17hr days the past couple weeks, trying to get automated integration testing and crash analysis systems up and running, just so i can free up more time to spend playing with javascript... 
|
|
|
|
|
IE only: sample folding[^].
Is that kinda vaguely what you're after? IF so I'll slap a cross browser version into shape once my laptop's recharged.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
