|
When I use the article search page to search for "Windows 7" (without quotes), it does not find the following article for some reason:
Windows 7 : New Features Explained Using .NET
Considering the first part of the title is "Windows 7", I'd think it would find that. Heck, there's even a space after the "7", so I wouldn't think your indexing algorithm would get confused by thinking "7:" is the word and that "7" didn't match it.
FYI, I didn't have any tags entered, I didn't have any roles selected, and all of the checkboxes for article type were checked.
An Aside
When there is an HTML tag at the end of a line when I type into this editor (e.g., the "</b>" in the above line or the "</a>" at the end of the line that contains the link to the article), the line break that follows that line is not used (when this message is rendered in the preview page and, I suspect, after I post it). So, I see "An Aside When there is" all on one line, instead of it being split into two lines as it should be. This appears to be browser specific. I'm currently on IE8.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there is more:
multi-digit numbers are no obstacle, one gets results matching each of the following
the 12
windows 32
windows 33
however single-digit numbers NEVER match anything, not even
the 2
windows 7
|
|
|
|
|
Ah ha. This should be easy. Thanks as always Luc.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
single-digit problem is no more.
|
|
|
|
|
After an adventurous couple of days, here are some new suggestions for the Article Publishing Wizard:
1.
I'd like to include a reference to the article in the source files; therefore I need to know what the (probable) URL will be before you ask me to upload the ZIP files, so that would be on page 1 or page 2 of the wizard.
(yes, I know, I can always edit it in in a second iteration; that is what I have done so far).
2.
I noticed you don't preserve the order of the uploads; I had them in chronological order (i.e. appearence in the HTML), but you have reordered them and almost made me replace the wrong ones.
3.
One of the most challenging things in article publishing, for me at least, still is deciding in what category and subcategory the article could be stored. This time around, I didn't find anything like "applications" or "tools"; later on I discovered such a subcategory exists under "Web development" which isn't really obvious for me. I'm not sure what the best approach would be, however having the subcategories ComboBox populate depending on the chosen category isn't really helping. At the moment I would go for one large but linear list, with bolded categories.
[ADDED]
4.
It isn't completely intuitive how one should go about updating a referenced file, e.g. a ZIP file. I discovered:
a) replacing a file (without a name change) works just like adding one; there is no need to delete the old file, in fact, that fails as the file is locked against the article's content;
b) replacing a file WITH a name change is horrible: one cannot delete the old, as the article still refers to it; so it takes two passes: one to add the new file and update the article content, a second one to delete the obsolete file.
a) deserves better guidance, not sure how b) could be handled elegantly.
[/ADDED]
[ADDED2]
Actually, the file deletion (and the final lock check) should be postponed until after the article has been updated. So either one of these scenarios seem reasonable (I prefer the second one):
i. offer possibility to select files to delete, select files to add, as it is now; check file locks and give warning "file XYZ will be deleted provided the article no longer refers to it"; edit article; when done, check the "files-to-delete" list and delete what is no longer needed, give a warning on files (still) locked against the new article, if any.
ii. do not offer a file deletion opportunity right away, just say "file replacement is like file addition; and once the article is edited, you will get the opportunity to delete obsolete files"; offer file addition; then article edit; then offer file deletion, only if there are files that are no longer referenced. This probably results in a page5 to be added.
[/ADDED2]
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I'd like to include a reference to the article in the source files; therefore I need to know what the (probable) URL will be before you ask me to upload the ZIP files
This is tricky, but it is something I think we can do while in the middle of the submission process and before you have uploaded files.
Luc Pattyn wrote: I had them in chronological order
We will display most recent first
Luc Pattyn wrote: One of the most challenging things in article publishing, for me at least, still is deciding in what category and subcategory the article could be stored
We're still debating this one too.
Luc Pattyn wrote: It isn't completely intuitive how one should go about updating a referenced file
The new wizard will have drag and drop file uploads with a live list of what files are available. IF you upload a file with the name of an existing file we'll show a warning to let you abort and rename. We'll also allow you to (continue to) be able to delete files in-place
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You're catching up on sugs&bugs I see. 
Most of what you replied looks great.
Chris Maunder wrote: We will display most recent first
I'm not sure I understand. Most recent what?
If you mean my initial list was A,B,C (so I did C last), you will show it as C,B,A??? I hope not.
If you mean my initial list was A,B,C and in another session I replace B, you make it B,A,C or B,C,A??? I hope not.
I would prefer you keep the order I used; add new things to the bottom; and preserve the position of things that get replaced. So A,B,C remains A,B,C. If I replace B, it still is A,B,C. If I add D, it becomes A,B,C,D. If I now remove C, it is A,B,D. If I now add another C, it becomes A,B,D,C of course.
BTW: I do like the comment field, I hope that will survive (and maybe grow a bit, horizontally).
A general impression on the Article Wizard I never expressed before is this:
- it has 4 pages, which the user initially does not know (it is an adventure!);
- it moves forward only (feels a bit like a trap);
- so you never know how far you are done, what difficult questions will be asked next, and you can't correct earlier steps, unless you start another wiz session.
- and then the non-initial sessions, IIRC, only have 3 pages, not quite the same as the original session.
I would prefer:
1. a system where you know what is ahead, not in any detail, but in globo (e.g. a TabControl with relevant TabPage labels);
2. at best: can move backward and forward (again as in a TabControl);
3. always has the same organization; so if some things can be choosen only once, show them as read-only TextBoxes rather than EditTextBoxes, but keep the layout, the numbering, everything (that is less code for you I guess).
And a final bonus: there is a bug in the preview; last time I used it it did not, not always, or not correctly (don't remember which) use the new uploads, so it may look completely different from what it will look when clicking "yes, I'm done!" or whatever the relief button is called.
![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code. modified on Tuesday, May 24, 2011 5:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris, I just updated my CP Vanity article, so I have new feedback on the process:
0.
Everything I said earlier still holds,
1.
except I did not notice any bug with respect to "new text + referenced files" (last paragraph in my previous message, now strikken). I modified three images, with new file names, and it worked as it should.
2.
As far as "delete files currently in use but no longer needed" my suggestion now is:
- let the user mark files he wants to remove;
- if they are not referenced at all, just delete them as you do now;
- if they are referenced, don't complain, keep a list; and try again when the wizard is about to close (no need to report success/failure IMO).
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
There still is one more issue with the file attachments:
CP Vanity went from 2.2 to 2.3 earlier this week; it used to have a single zip (CPVanity.zip), the latest has two (CPVanity_exe.zip and CPVanity_src.zip). As I wasn't able to remove the first zip right away (it was still referenced by the old article text), I forgot to remove it in the end. No harm done, except for some disk space? Think again. The very nice "Browse Code" feature shows all the available zips, and as the old ZIP had quite a number of files, it filled my screen and I never considered scrolling down for more zips, so I was actually reading my own, now obsolete, 2.2 code.
The symptoms can be removed by going once more through the wizard and deleting the old zip; that is what I did today, and why CP Vanity now again features on the home page (while nothing was added or changed).
So I have to amend my earlier suggestion:
- on the upload page, take note which files need to be added (is OK) and are to be removed; if removal succeeds right away (because no reference exists), just remove them (or postpone, same difference); if removal fails, keep a list of things to remove.
- after the text has been finalized, scan the list of items to remove, and remove them if and only if not (or no longer) referenced.
- and this is the new part: also scan the article for things required and compare to the list of available files; if redundant files are present, launch a dialog and ask the user what to do about them, warning him that (a) they waste space, and (b) they may confuse the readers using "Browse Code". I am assuming things missing already are flagged (I never did that, so I don't know).
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.3
|
|
|
|
|
the plot thickens even more: I just discovered you don't have a (hidden) version control for the attachments, which means:
1.
if I remove graphics I no longer need, the older versions don't show themselves correctly any longer. You do check the references for the latest (or latest-but-one-to-be) version of the article, not older versions.
2.
if I reuse the filename for the ZIP file, and update the code, the older code is no longer available for browsing/downloading; even while viewing an old version of the article, what one gets when downloading is the latest file with the referenced name.
I was naively expecting you held copies of all files, one set for each version of the article. I can understand you may not be eager to do so.
Maybe it would be better for "Browse Code" to only show ZIP files that are referenced in the latest version of the article; that way authors could use different filenames for ZIP versions (supporting the download of code fitting an article version), without cluttering the "Browse Code" tab.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.3
|
|
|
|
|
Thought it might be worth mentioning that the Quick Answers Bug List[^] and Suggestions/TODOs[^] has been updated and reworked a bit to allow easier tracking and reporting of fixes back to you guys.
Sorry for not being more consistent with this. Been away the last couple weeks and we've been working on some drawn out tasks. 
|
|
|
|
|
What happens if this big green button is pressed in Tips/Tricks?
I would assume that it would just change colour (much like accept answer in QA) and compliment the existing Tip but I want to make sure before I click it!
The mouseover tooltip doesn't really explain any implications.
Dave
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
Why are you using VB6? Do you hate yourself? (Christian Graus)
modified on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 5:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, it basically says you approve of the alternate approach provided.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification - done it.
Dave
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
Why are you using VB6? Do you hate yourself? (Christian Graus)
|
|
|
|
|
It seems you can't delete a Quick Answer post after it has been edited by someone.
If the post has already been answered elsewhere, or otherwise inappropriate, it still should be able to be removed regardless how, how many times, it has been edited correct?
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Correct. I'm trying to think why exactly we put that restriction in place. I think it was just to prevent good/active content from being deleted. But.. that should be covered by the rating check.. Hrmmm...
Which answer are you specifically referring to? Just want to see an example. In any case, I'll add this to the list of TODOs (assuming I don't stumble across a good reason we put it there in the first place).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like he simply re-asked the question in the Quick Answers system. I know that sounds like cheating a little but it doesn't hurt the system much. As long as it's not repeated within the same system. But your original points remains.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say its the same as posting to multiple forums. It looses the context of other answers and feedback that may already have been given.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Nischalke wrote: It looses the context of other answers and feedback that may already have been given.
True.
Mark Nischalke wrote: I would say its the same as posting to multiple forums.
I'd have to disagree. Some users will never use the forums for programming questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Thiru Thirunavukarasu wrote: I'm trying to think why exactly we put that restriction in place
That should be part of the specifications, the code comments, and the documentation. Are you hesitating which one to look in to?
WHY is the question that deserves most attention in documentation, it helps avoiding to make the same mistake over and over, as well as changing back and forth between alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope didn't hesitate to look at the code. Surprised we aren't perfect? It's sometimes hard to ensure every last piece of functionality is fully documented when dealing with large volumes of change requests.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
