|
I've managed to do this twice recently (stupid browser autocomplete).
0) Hit http://codeproject.com/Lounge[^]
1) Get redirected to the 404 page.
2) Hit the lounge link in the header.
3) See all messages in the forums are marked as read.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
You need to hit www.codeproject.com/lounge.aspx. Note the missing ".aspx".
Not sure about the "all results marked as read". That would happen if you start a new session soon after a previous session.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You need to hit www.codeproject.com/lounge.aspx. Note the missing ".aspx".
I know what the correct URL is. It was a one time fat finger, combined with brain damaged URL auto complete for the repeat performances.
Chris Maunder wrote: Not sure about the "all results marked as read". That would happen if you start a new session soon after a previous session.
I guess that explains how the bug works: No (expired?) session -> 404 page -> valid address (just the lounge?) shouldn't trigger creating two sessions one immediately after the next.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: I know what the correct URL is.
Just covering all the bases. We all have  moments where the solution was in front of our noses.
And no, there should not be two sessions created. To me this sounds like an error caused by something like a server dying or a site update. Web3 is particularly woozy this week and has gone down twice.
Let me know if it happens again.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
It happened consistently in january (IIRC I did it once or twice more after reporting it); but I'm 0/2 reproing it yesterday/today.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take those odds 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Had an idea for a change to rep points for the participation rep points. In my mind, Participation really represents 'active' participation, and all of the other categories represent lasting works (and points).
If someone doesn't perform any of the actions that will gain them participation points for a long period of time (say 2 months?) do they really deserve to keep their participation points? I think if you become inactive, and do not participate, that your rep points in this category should go down by a certain increment every so often (and the total deduction over time should not exceed the points in earned the participation category). All other rep points would stay because they represent lasting works on the site.
I bring this up because in looking at some profiles, there are some people that had a flurry of activity long ago and then they dropped off the map. They are no longer participants. I think their rep points in this category should represent that fact.
I think this would be a more accurate representation of the sentiment for that category. While it currently takes more of a 'carrot' approach, I think a combination 'carrot & stick' approach would help newer, more active members. I think a new person to CP that is actively participating (as defined by the points you can earn in the category) should have higher participation rep points than someone who has moved on and no longer participates (Or only participates once every six months).
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
I canpredict the future. Chris will reply to your post with the following words, "I prefer it the way it is."
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
modified 25-Jan-12 15:30pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Is my suggestion a repost? Or is it that Chris just usually denies suggestions for changes to the rep system? 
eidt - nevermind, got my answer. Chris replied at the same time I posted this.
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
Karl Sanford wrote: Or is it that Chris just usually denies suggestions
from certain people. I guess you are not one of those from the certain people club.
You actually got more of a response from him, then he usually gives anyone here about this sort of subject (rep points). However, this is my observation and thus must not be taken seriously.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking something along the same lines, and we already do something along these lines in calculating the annual MVP list in that we only count points earned in the last year.
On your note, though, I was thinking of 2 years, not 2 months: You have an overall cumulative points tally, but also an "active" tally that determines your actual membership level.
I, for instance, have posted over a hundred articles and so am recognised as a legend author, but I don't feel I deserve that anymore since it's been a long time since I've posted in volume.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply  Looking forward to whatever you decide on.
Chris Maunder wrote: I, for instance, have posted over a hundred articles and so am recognised as a
legend author, but I don't feel I deserve that anymore since it's been a long
time since I've posted in volume.
I think that since these are lasting works, the points should stay. In everyone elses case but yours, if one were to leave the code project, the works would stay. It's just that they aren't participating (as defined by the items in the category). Also, for those people that write one absolutely amazing article, and then don't ever return, their author rep should reflect that one amazing article no matter what. Only the participation category should represent their lack of participation.
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
The beauty of the rep system is that it's specifically geared to provide passive income, so to speak. You post an article and get points on it, but the real points come from the bookmarks, votes and downloads on that article. Of my 230K points, only 10K came from actually posting the articles. The other 220K was earned from members appreciating my article over the years.
So, a system that only counts points earned in the last 2 years (as opposed to points earned on items posted in the last 2 years) would provide the fairness required.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
OOOOoooo, I get it now ... thanks for clarifying.
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
My own personal preference is that a member's "good works:" articles, tips/tricks/ qa answers, and their voting/benchmarking record persist.
In terms of the "participation" score: well, I've never thought about it, or even noticed it
Legends ? Well, I think Legends should be ... forever.
Perhaps change "MVP" to "MVPY" for "MVP of the Year" ?
But, there is one "strange fruit" in the orchard of CP reputation that I do think deserves to atrophy, since so much content there seems to rot so quickly, or is actually delivered already in an indigestible state: Lounge rep. In fact, I'd like to see it completely go away, or be reset each month on the full moon ... okay make that four times a year: solstices, equinoxes
best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
Lounge Personality de jour?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just edited the content by taking the code you were trying to display, fixing it up in notepad, then pasting it directly into your message as if you'd just copy and pasted it from Visual Studio (or, in my case, Notepad). I selected "Paste as code" in the paste dialog (though it guessed this itself) and set the language as C# just to make it pretty and it seems all good.
Can you walk me through how you did it?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, you didn't need to do that.
I copied-and-pasted the code from VS to the message, selected, and clicked encode. Win7, VS 2010, IE8.
After that I selected again and clicked code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. It's an entry into the LightswLightSwitch Star Contest[^]. It's a pretty unusual contest as far as CP goes, but this is allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks thatraja!
Espen Harlinn
Senior Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services
|
|
|
|
|
In a brilliantly self-referential meta-commentary: [^]
AspDotNetDev has, I believe, raised an issue the metaphysical "depth" of which is so blindingly awesome it may even eclipse, temporarily, our on-going obsession with "rep scores."
I believe in the fundamental rights of a person to have as many personalities as they need, which does not mean I don't feel compassion for someone who has multiple personalities, and believes there is something "wrong" about themself(ves); or that I don't feel compassion for those who have one (personality), and are, perhaps, haunted by a sense they are missing out.
From my point of view, as an ex-psychotherapist, if a person is troubled by who they (is) are, and wishes to change from pluralistic to singular, or versa-vice, that's a matter of personal choice. And, if they are happy with their multiple or unary personality(ies), great !
Discrimination against people with multiple personalities, expressed in such epithets as "sock-puppets," etc., are, thankfully, a form of bigotry we are now discarding in common usage; unless, of course, said "sock-puppets" are created for some insidious purpose, are not truly "organic" expressions of the Self. And, in the case of "perverse intention:" we righteously condemn said perpetrators of iniquity: yea, may their accounts be deleted.
On the technical level though, I think this comment raises an important issue for CodeProject: should there be a special registration mechanism for those who feel their "organic" multiple personalities are so distinct so unique, that each should have a separate CP account.
Which raises other technically complex issues: what if "Personality A," and "Personality B," post identical posts ? Are they then guilty of cross-posting ? What if "Personality X" demands that all personalities should have a combined reputation score ? What if "A" reports "B" to CP as an "impostor" ?
Note that even touching on the issue of "impostoring" almost demands we need a portmanteau to be added to our common technical parlance: "imposter" ?
best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
