|
Online form. I have the HTML (at home, I'm supposedly working now) so I can easily re-send it when I get back if needed.
|
|
|
|
|
We've got it 
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Good, less effort for me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Icons are displayed inside PRE tags which in my humble opinion should not be rendered there. The pre tag is for displaying code and not for emoticons.
It only seems to occur when the icon sequence is inside a string.
See here: wrong answer in loop[^]
A colon followed by a zero in this case is rendered as the *blushing* icon.
Regards,
Manfred
":0"
:0
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
That ain't meant to happen! Where's my sonic screwdriver...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
See the comments on this thread:[^].
A very disturbing pattern of frequent posting ... on QA questions ... of what I regard as off-topic warning messages directed to other people who answer questions for QA posters has emerged. These warnings are now being posted within hours of the original question, without giving the questioner time to respond to other comments already posted that may (?) clarify the original question.
In fact, I happen to agree, entirely, with the author of these "big red ventilations," SAK, that we need a solution to reducing the waste of time spent on QA trying to get posters to at least tag/qualify their posts in the most basic ways.
And, I have made detailed proposals on this forum, as to how that may be done in a way I consider not punitive, not intrusive, and constructive: a simple pop-up web-form where some fields must be filled in, or checked, or whatever before the question can be posted.
But, to allow any one person, no matter how high their rep, to confuse a QA thread with such a spate of messages, I think is not constructive, and not encouraging to beginners, "shy" people, people for whom English may not be their first language.
Recently, I reached "Platinum" status as "Authority," which I am a bit "humbled by," because: when I Iook at the amazing breadth, range, and depth, of answers across several .NET technologies of such "prodigies" as SAK, OriginalGriff, S Abhinav, Christian Gauss, and others, I really don't feel I deserve to have the same status.
Please, QA question-clarification is something that needs cleaning up: now. But, also, please, let us not allow QA itself to become an arena filled with static about this issue, and its possible solution, to the detriment of our purpose on QA, which, imho, is to serve the people who ask the questions.
best, Bill
"Our life is a faint tracing on the surface of mystery, like the idle, curved tunnels of leaf miners on the surface of a leaf. We must somehow take a wider view, look at the whole landscape, really see it, and describe what's going on here. Then we can at least wail the right question into the swaddling band of darkness, or, if it comes to that, choir the proper praise." Annie Dillard
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with SA's (and your own) sentiments on forcing those who would like help to at least help us try and help them. It doesn't take a lot of effort to pose a question in a way that gives us at least *something* to go on. I supported SA's post on this yesterday for these reasons, but I do agree with yourself, Bill, that continually posting this request will lead to noise.
So how do we fix these issues?
My hope and wish is that everyone with status takes 5 minutes a day to go through and clean out any questions posted inappropriately. The faster we clean the faster we teach all those participating that there has to be a minimum level of effort put in, and the faster SA can settle back into his frantic pace of answering questions instead of being frustrated to the point of needing to coat the walls blood red.
We need to teach users how to ask for help and help those who are providing the help in turn.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
You already have heard the "full monte" of my views on this issue, but the only further comment I would make is that frequent deletions (with the exception of immediately exterminating obvious homework), may be, in the long run, not constructive.
I suppose I could write comments on a QA question like:
"If you do not respond to or clarify within 24 hours the following specific questions, this message will be deleted," but, if I did that, I'd feel like a "Nazi"  . Just not my style.
Perhaps another idea worth exploring would be that QA answerers with a certain Rep could place questions in a special "questions on hold" section of QA, and then, when the OP tags/clarifies, restore them back into the main sections ?
So, once again, I urge you to consider some intermediate step which will encourage posters to tag/clarify their questions. I am sure you know how StackOverFlow operates via a "posse" method to remove posts, so I won't bring that up.
best, Bill
"Our life is a faint tracing on the surface of mystery, like the idle, curved tunnels of leaf miners on the surface of a leaf. We must somehow take a wider view, look at the whole landscape, really see it, and describe what's going on here. Then we can at least wail the right question into the swaddling band of darkness, or, if it comes to that, choir the proper praise." Annie Dillard
|
|
|
|
|
I agree the "big red text" from SA is not very helpful, but his sentiment is correct - too many people just don't give the info needed to answer the question. But I'm not happy with the "just delete it" idea either - as you say the whole idea of the site is to help these people, which deleting the question doesn't do.
How about (and I know it is more work for you, as if you didn't have enough already) a platinum-authority-and-above-only button, which sends a message to the OP that he needs to improve his question, and removes it from the unanswered list, until he does? That way Q&A isn't cluttered, but the OP gets told what he did wrong without getting his question summarily deleted?
Combined with guidelines as to when we use it, it could fill both requirements.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
I think Chris might be working on a way for an email to be sent to the OP if you report the question accordingly, platinum member or not.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
The issue with sending an email to the member saying "please improve the question" is that, in many cases, those who don't care enough to spend 30 seconds forming a decent question probably aren't going to be swayed by an email.
The point of CodeProject is to help each other - but it's give and take. If someone does not have the decency to spend a little time explaining, or worse, simply asks for us to send them code to do their work, then they aren't participating in a constructive manner and I invite them to search elsewhere.
I'm not talking about the devs who are trying but can't make themselves clear, or the ones who aren't great at English but at least provide a small snippet and, say, an error message to help us. These we certainly need to help get to the bottom of the issue and that's what the comment system is for. Posting a comment is better then sending an email because this way others can see that someone has already asked the poster for more information.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: off-topic warning messages directed to other people who answer questions for QA
posters has emerged
There was a reason I stopped posting answers in the Q and A forum, and his name was SA Kyurov. I had hoped that time would have mellowed his approach, but when I revisited yesterday, I saw that he was just as arrogant as ever. I will not be going back for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people kiss SA's ass on a regular and religious basis. He is an arrogant, self righteous programmer. I gave you a 5 Pete because you are a respected member and you mentioned something that I have thought for some time.
I am not trying to be mean here but enough is enough.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Hear, Hear! I personally think that the standard of this whole site has gone done in the last 6 - 8 months, but Q&A has become a huge joke. Know it all Kryukov makes it highly unpleasant to answer any questions there.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: and his name was
_____ (insert name of nemesis)
I know this defies all logic but maybe just ignore the dude?
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
While I can ignore him, it's hard for the OP to ignore when he comes along and tries to convince them that his is the only right answer, even when it doesn't actually answer the question that was asked, but rather presents this Utopian ideal of the question that should have been asked.
I have asked him to stop this behaviour before - heck, a lot of us have, but he continues with this behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
How can you ignore him when he posts SEE MY ANSWER on every answer you post, as if his answer is the only one that could possibly be correct.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. I have just seen one of his comments to another user that has prompted me to post this[^] comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Good for you. I just hope Chris is seeing the fuss that this is causing as well as the positive votes that everyone on this thread is receiving, which I think just shows the feeling amongst members that SA is generating.
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
I'm watching.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That's all we ask. You are obviously the best judge of which direction you want this site to head. 
When I was a coder, we worked on algorithms. Today, we memorize APIs for countless libraries — those libraries have the algorithms - Eric Allman
|
|
|
|
|
I delete any reply or comment that does not serve a genuine and helpful purpose. Member name and rank means nothing to me in this arena. People come here to get help. If they are trolls, spammers, or trouble makers then show them the door.
IMHO, you don't need our approval for your actions if your actions are in the best interest of the site.
Just my thoughts.
"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 largely stopped posting in Q&A too, for exactly the reasons Pete outlined. OK, my few answers per day are not a huge loss to the community, but there are others who have had problems (see this thread[^]) and at least one other person has stopped answering.
Its not just this "Sheriff of London Town" attitude, but also the "See My Answer" thing, as if there is something incorrect or even deficient about the answer he is commenting on, which often there isn't. Like Pete I'd hoped he was in some sort of larval stage and would calm down, but a quick squizz at his recent replies shows this isn't the case.
[Edit]
OK Slacker007 has already seconded Pete. So I'll third him.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: I've largely stopped posting in Q&A too
Which is a pity (in Pete's case too), as it's a loss to both the site (lots of people value your comments/opinions/answers), and the people who post questions. Sometimes a question can have more than one answer, and it's that multiplicity of information which is most useful to the questioners, and the rest of us who learn new things as we wander by.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
