|
As far as I can tell it's got to do with Chrome not updating information on the current cursor position after we insert text.
If you insert a CODE block, then click the code block insert button again, the problem show. If you click anywhere in between inserts the problem won't happen.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the fact that when I was responding to a post, the original post I was responding to was in a blue square. It helped the eye be able to delineate the page a bit better. Now that it is all white I think it is a bit visually confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
That happened briefly to me yesterday during a site update but went back to normal afterwards. Have you tried forcing a refresh of you cache with CTRL-F5?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I just noticed that the blue area is back... must have been some kind of CSS thing that worked itself out.
|
|
|
|
|
So, in an attempt to beat this horse to death yet again, an idea came to me about how we could potentially make article submission just a bit better. At very least stop the offenders from being able to say they did not know what makes a good article, etc...
We have a few articles that details how to write a good article around here. We also have a ton of great input from the other writers that take their time top post high quality stuff. The problem is this:
1) It is scattered all over. Yes, I know, you can look for it, but if you don't know its there them...
2) there is nothing that makes a submitter responsible for viewing it before they have the right to submit an article. A lack of enforcement simply breeds ignorance.
So, I propose this. All new accounts, before they are able to submit an article, must go through a short 'class' that shows them what a real article is. This does not have to be something really complicated, but it should be substantial enough to maybe weed out the lamers that are trying to post questions and code snippets as articles. Maybe do a short video in Silverlight that they watch, or at very least a decent writeup on how to write an article, how the submission process works, etc...
...Then, test them on it. Make them go through a simple 10-20 question multiple choice test. Then, if they still create junk have the ability to reset their validation and make them go through it again the next time they try to do submit another article.
Yes, this may discourage people from writing articles a bit, but I think the people that see the real value in the good work will still do it, and the ones that don't, well we can just let them pass by I think.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
I do like the concept but testing adds a level of pain and suffering that is hard to automate, easy to bypass. I'm just not sure how it should be done.
Maybe a better idea is to force the author to view the article after posting with a big "Does this even remotely look good??" popup appearing?
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest, I am not sure if having a person review their own work is great simply because they wrote it and if they think it was good to start with it is going to turn into just another click for them. It may help catch the ones that are clearly mistakes using the tools but...
Would it really be difficult to come up with a 20 question multiple-choice test that you need to get an 80 or higher on before you can submit an article? Seems to me its just an attribute in the user profile that has their score and that the article submission process checks before allowing them in. This can be cleared back to 0 by the system if they get a poor rating in their submitted articles I think.
Just trying to come up with a way that is a small pain point for those that do a good job yet enough of a pain to make those that don't do a good job think twice...
Maybe its a lost cause 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: "Does this even remotely look good??" popup
Some great authors will thank you for that. 
IMO articles should go through an automated filter first. Just check a dozen things, yielding good and bad points (is there sufficient text? is there a download? are there some hyperlinks? is there some boilerplate text? is formatting disallowing automatic width adjustment?).
Now if the good points outweigh the bad points, list the bad points as suggestions and let the article through, no more "needing approval".
If the bad points outweigh the good points, reject the "article" and list the bad points as the reason for that.
And when in doubt (good and bad points almost balancing out), list the bad points as suggestions and let the author choose between "show to gold members for possible approval" or "I will retry soon".
Every "list the bad points" could mean: add a message listing the bad points, so if the article still needs approval, the goldies don't have to repeat what is already in there.
BTW At the moment I am no longer reading the "articles needing approval", main reason is messages we add disappear almost immediately for unknown reasons (new version posted? article approved?). It is just a waste of time. I'm now in favor of a user setting hiding them from the home page.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I am no longer reading the "articles needing approval", main reason is messages we add disappear almost immediately for unknown reasons
When an article is approved the messages are removed. This is because new article authors often get lots of "you should do X to improve the article" messages, which some do, and then the final, approved article is different than the article originall discussed. Why keep those messages?
But if you are opting out of helping control the quality of articles simply because you don't want these moderation and suggestion comments then that is certainly your choice, but please remember moderation is there for the community as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
An article getting approved does not change its content, nor how I feel about it, what my comment is or what my vote is.
I made this suggestion twice before: comments on articles apply to a specific version of the article, and since you now are keeping article versions, you should keep the messages together with the version they apply to.
If the comment also applies to the next version, the comment author should be given an easy way to move (promote) the comment to the newer version; and he should have an opt-in possibility to get email notification when he commented on an article and it gets a new version, so he can revise both his comment and his vote.
Sure article moderation is there for the community as a whole; however it should be fair to all, and easy to use.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: comments on articles apply to a specific version of the article
I disagree. Comments usually apply to the article's topic as a whole. Article bugs usually apply to a specific versions.
Luc Pattyn wrote: If the comment also applies to the next version, the comment author should be given an easy way to move (promote) the comment to the newer version;
Authors want to deal with their articles, they do not (I am guessing) want to tidy up after peopole who leave comments. My grid article, for instance, has hundreds of comments and there is no way I'm going to be able to go through and work out which is relevent to which version. Sometimes they are relevant to all versions, sometimes one version, sometimes all and one version at the same time.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Sure article moderation is there for the community as a whole; however it should be fair to all, and easy to use
Absolutely. Let me know which bit needs to be made easier to use and which bits you feel are unfair.
If it's simply that you don't want old messages and votes that are relevant to pre-approved articles being removed then I can easily turn that feature off if it's generally agreed to be a good idea not to have it.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: comments on articles apply to a specific version of the article
OK I'll rephrase that: comments apply to the article as it was at the moment the comment message got added. The comments may or may not apply to earlier versions, that seems irrelevant to me. They may or may not apply to future versions, that cannot be predicted, and if they do that typically means the author is either ignoring them or not honoring them sufficiently.
Luc Pattyn wrote: If the comment also applies to the next version, the comment author should be given an easy way to move (promote) the comment to the newer version
I think you misunderstood. Of course it is the author of the comment who is in charge of his message; he can decide that it also applies to the newer version of the article. If so, he wants an easy way to attach it to the current version of the article.
Chris Maunder wrote: My grid article, for instance, has hundreds of comments and there is no way I'm going to be able to go through and work out which is relevent to which version.
That is exactly my point: if all comments targeting version 1 would appear only when you are looking at version 1, all comments targeting version 2 would appear only when you are looking at version 2, etc then automatically the issues that got solved when upgrading from 1 to 2 would disappear from the message list on the current version. So keeping the messages together with the right version is a service both to the author and to the readers.
Chris Maunder wrote: Let me know which bit needs to be made easier to use and which bits you feel are unfair.
Easier:
1. I don't want to see an article-needing-approval more than once if it hasn't changed since my last visit. That could be automatic, or I want an hyperlink so I can mark "already seen that" which then should show on my home page.
2. Once you start keeping messages together with the article version they apply to, I want a way to
see my comments to older versions and promote a message to the current version if I feel it still applies. Seeing the new version of an article and my old comments I probably can judge about my comments and vote without reading the entire article again, provided my comments are still there;
and if the first impression is the article suddenly got quite interesting, I will be glad to read it
(again), but only then.
Fair:
it simply is unfair that comments added to help and improve articles get discarded; it seems sufficient for the article's author to launch a new version and all is gone; and it seems sufficient for some dude to approve the article, and all comments are gone, even when they remain perfectly valid.
Do you really expect people to spend time and effort entering rightful suggestions that are likely to get erased automatically? There should be only one discouraging fact and that is the author of the article ignoring the comments, everything else that works against commentators should be avoided.
Chris Maunder wrote: If it's simply that you don't want old messages and votes being removed ...
I sure want that to be taken down. However I do want more, as explained before and above.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: it seems sufficient for the article's author to launch a new version and all is gone;
Just a quick clarification: Messages and votes are only removed when an article is moderated and goes from 'Pending' to 'Available'. This is a one-time event. If an article is updated to a new version then the comments and votes stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: when an article is moderated and goes from 'Pending' to 'Available'
not sure what all these terms mean exactly (do they show somewhere as an article state?), however:
Chris Maunder wrote: If an article is updated to a new version then the comments and votes stay
is not matching my experience. Either there is some bug, or something changed recently, or the authors have an easy way to circumvent it. Could it be rather than launch a new version, they can easily remove the old, then put a new one that you accept as an entirely different article? I had lots of trouble last week getting and keeping my comments with the articles-needing-approval I voted down; and I noticed other comment messages (including some from Dave Kreskowiak) also disappeared on such articles.
I'd rather provide more detailed facts, I don't have any available right now. Those articles are rapidly moving targets...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
today's test shows messages do survive a new version of an article being installed.
There still remain two problems as far as I can see:
1. I had to add the same message over and over again to two or three articles last week; I saw nothing changed to the articles (did not really look at the version then), but every time I looked my messages (basically saying "there is no text, this is not an article") and any others were gone. I don't know how that is possible, my best guess is the author of the article removed the article, then reinstalled it identically. I do want something that prevents such behavior, e.g. a limit (of 2) to the number of new articles per author per day, and/or a 3-day embargo on titles and folder names belonging to articles that get deleted (all intended to stimulate new versions, not replacements).
2. Removing messages and votes on approval does not make sense to me. Approval does not change the content of an article (unless CP staff edits AND approves an article, as you just did), so it should not wipe out existing messages and votes.
Cheers,
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I am in favor of anything that would improve article quality. But as Chris points out, anything that we can think up, can probably be bypassed or ignored.
My thinking now is that if a bad article is submitted, we give the author's home address to John.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: we give the author's home address to John.
That would be okay if someone subsidized the cost of ammunition for me.
Hans Dietrich wrote: Of course I am in favor of anything that would improve article quality.
Maybe someone shouldn't be allowed to post an article until they've been an *active* CP member for a year.
Maybe people should only be allowed to have ONE article in the pending approval pile at any given time.
Maybe people that have had an article rejected should be enjoined from posting further articles for a short time - perhaps five years.
Failing all of the above, I'm willing to take out care of people who continue to screw the pooch on article submissions, but if any travel is required, I'm going to need to be reimbursed.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Never experienced this when printing articles before, but the Print layout for articles now shows the CP orange color as a wide (1.75 inches wide) orange bar down the left margin of 1st page. Subsequent pages look OK.
Also code blocks that (should) extend over a page break are truncated AT the page break. I can confirm that in print preview. Don't know for sure that this is the first time I've seen this. Looking back through a couple of printed articles from a week or so ago, it appears as though the code blocks get printed properly even when they span a page break.
If it helps - IE 7 on WinXP Pro SP2. Printing to a Xerox Xerox WorkCentre 7665
|
|
|
|
|
First issue: sorted. Will update this afternoon.
I can't repeat the second issue. HAve you tried on other printers or with other browsers?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris -
Here at work I've tried it on an HP 4300 as well - same result. Have no access to any other browsers here. Found hard-copy of an article I printed last weekend at home using IE7 on Vista, printed on a little Okidata laser and, while it didn't TRUNCATE at the page break, it dropped about 5 lines of the code in the middle of a code block. I'll try it again at home this evening.
go into Print Preview and navigate to around page 17 of Karl Shifflett's article at
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/WPFBusinessAppsPartOne.aspx?display=Print[^]
The code there runs to more than a printed page and I can only get one page to print. The top of printed page 18 starts with the next textual part of the article. About 10-15 lines get dropped.
If it might help, I can save to an XPS file and send it to you
|
|
|
|
|
The 'new message' button is missing in my member page, it's a new CP feature or simply my fault?
(Sorry if it is a repost).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
It is a bug.
Am going to look at it now
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Elina Blank wrote: Am going to look at it now
Hello Elina, any update to this? Thanks
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I'm the slow coach here.
I was in the middle of updating the system and found a small bug that has required a lot of reworking and cleaning out of some deadwood (spring cleaning early). Just doing some final testing and will have the new code up in a jiffy.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
