|
Aw, magic..
Without Mustrum Ridcully, how would this have been done without magic? The subject and time/date of the post cannot be the identifying item here, as it would have qualified as a new post.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neh, there is a wizard that they've got to sort this out.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect a hash code is stored for each message body, then an index is placed on that hash code. When a new message is created, a hash can be created and it can be quickly looked up in the database. If a match is found for the hash, the message body corresponding to that hash can be compared against the new message body. If they match, it's a copy. In fact, SQL probably does all that hash magic under the covers for varchar fields, so I suspect there's no need to create a new field for it. Not really that mysterious.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: Not really that mysterious.
Would be a good explanation, if the first post were actually posted. Could have been a GUID. Without a first post, the error is erroneous.
Disclaimer: altough it's a fact, it's also a fact that I have been drinking. Surrounded by clowns ATM.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, so you are saying that you got that error when the message you posted was, in theory, completely original?
I suspect Chris will want details, such as the exact contents of the message. And if you tried again, did it error out again. And which forum this was in.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: I suspect Chris will want details, such as the exact contents of the message. And if you tried again, did it error out again. And which forum this was in.
IamsorryandIwillnotdoitagain?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Without a first post, the error is erroneous.
I am taking this as my Zen Koan for the day's meditation.
thanks, Bill
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
Magic.
Did this message appear after you had tried posting a message? Did you double-tap the submit button? Or have I overclocked the CPUs on the servers too much so they are returning results before you post them?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Did you double-tap the submit button?
That must've been it; sitting behind a laptop with a touchpad for a mouse.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
I was browsing Toolbar section and a few articles have their images broken. Possibly it was broken during transition to new URL system.
For example Sizing TabControlBar[^] doesn't show image. I did a test and Googled the title of the article to see if image shows up in Google's site Preview. There were two links that I got as a search result. The second (old-style) link to article's comment shows the article with the main image: Sizing TabControlBar[^]
Thanks,
Damir
modified 22-Feb-12 12:38pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been happening for several months now. I already reported it, but it's not fixed. CodeProject is automatically publishing ALL posts published in my blog, not only tagged to be so.
People is complaining about senseless articles published by me, when they were wrongly taken by codeProject. Can you please fix this?
Thanks !!
Inaki Ayucar
http://graphicdna.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed your feed from our blog aggregation.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the kind of response that I expected from you.
"I already reported it, but it's not fixed. CodeProject is automatically publishing ALL posts published in my blog, not only tagged to be so."
I don't blog outside of CP, so I can't verify his statement. I would have expected a "we'll check out the filter" before this response. What's wrong?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
My apologies. I'm spread a bit thin this week so read your message as "stop consuming my blogs". I have another open ticket on blog consumption but won't be able to get to it until at least latter in the week, at which time I'll try and dig in and see what's happening with your blog.
Until that time it's probably safer to stick with keeping your blog offline. Once I work out the problem and add it back, then any blogs you add during that time will automatically be aggregated.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've re-added your blog feed (the Atom feed, actually, in order to provide an XML feed) and the blog aggregator, in my very quick tests, did not find any blogs to consume.Are you following the instructions for tagging (or microformats) on the blog feed page[^]?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Is this a bug or expected behavior "Accepting our own answer to our own question"
And also by doing this we can earn 25 points.
Hope this helps ,
--Rahul D.
|
|
|
|
|
It is and it should be possible. There is of course a potential for abuse, but this is usually countered by our vigilant and observant user base. When I encouner such a case of abuse I just downvote the given solution and add a report as abuse vote to it.
There are nevertheless not so rare ocassions where OP does indeed give a significant and valid solution to his/her own question. These solutions are only downvoted by myself if they don't include appropriate credit to solutions that contributed to OP's "own" solution.
Best Regards,
Manfred
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
There are some who abuse this privilege, but I believe it is valid that it exists.
If someone asks a question and does not get a good answer from CP it is very good and should be encouraged that they provide their solution when they come up with one so that the community can benefit. In that case they should be marking their answers as correct.
That being said, I'm pretty quick on the trigger finger to report when OPs post "answers" that are not answers and marked as such by the OP.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Kramer wrote: That being said, I'm pretty quick on the trigger finger to report when OPs post "answers" that are not answers and marked as such by the OP.
So am I! 
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, and +5; I've often had a question that was answered by the topic-starter, without any additional comments. It's a blessing to see an answer if you're directed here by Google, and I always vote them up for taking the time to answer their own question.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with the crowd on down-voting an OP's self-solutions, unless a reasonable period of time has passed from the original post date, unless they give credit to what they used from other posted solutions, etc.
And also: if clarifying questions have been asked, and not replied to by the OP before they post a self-solution, I would down-vote. And if I know there are already resources on CP (articles, tips/tricks, etc.) that could well have given the same answer as the self-solution ... which indicates to me the OP did not bother to search CP: that's a potential factor, for me, in a down-vote.
But, another consideration: if there is substantial independent technical merit in a self-solution, and/or a novel solution presented, I'd rather write the OP a comment, and suggest they write a Tip/Trick or article for CP to share their insight.
So, for me, no absolute rule on down-voting a self-solution, but that's just my choice, and I am not advocating anyone else should adopt it.
If I were structuring the site (ha !), I don't think I would allow self-solutions posted or credited unless: the OP first posted at least a Tip/Trick, and then linked to it in a QA self-solution.
Since I've already raved (enough already) about "freezing" QA questions where the OP does not respond to clarifying questions, just consider this another expression of latent ... or overt ? ... fascism ?
best, Bill
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I don't think I would allow self-solutions posted or credited unless: the OP first posted at least a Tip/Trick, and then linked to it in a QA self-solution
How many times do you search for a solution for hours, then post a question, then, 5 seconds later, find the solution? I strongly encourage members who do this to post the answer.
Contributing to the common knowledge base is more important than worrying about members trying to game a system. They would have to repeat the self-answering enough times to make a dent in their rep that their behaviour will be spotted and action will be taken.
Let's focus on the helping the community, not on individuals.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I invite you to examine the question, then examine the two answers, then examine my comment to the OP (written after reading the two answers), and then examine my comments on the two answers.[^].
And, please, down-vote me into oblivion if you think I deserve it !
I guarantee you this is the last time I will waste time on commenting to this degree on both vague questions, and "premature" answers which are either digressive, or buggy: instead (I promise), from now on I will focus only on giving answers to reasonably clear questions where I think my answer can be useful.
Or I will limit myself to brief clarifying questions to the OP which, if not responded to in 24 hours, I will then not further waste time.
Scout's Honor 
best, Bill
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." Niels Bohr
modified 21-Feb-12 1:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill,
I do indeed see the need to discuss the issue you are adressing. I've already adressed the issue with involved members that being to strict in wording, pedantery as you properly named it, is not really helpfull. There is a nice slogan which I try to adhere to:
Be strict in what you produce and be loose in what you accept.
This does however lead to problems as a "not so concise" question will likely bear an answer that might as well miss the target all together. Even if the answerer is not totally bent on giving OP a lecture on how it should really be done.
I would very much like an open discussion on how to properly deal with poorly phrased or even lazy questions without giving up on professional behaviour. Some times there is a call for "Liquid Nitrogen" and sometimes there is just a need for OP to refine his/her question in order to have us properly answer it.
Best Regards,
Manfred
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
