|
|
There is some issue with the images in my article and are not visible in my final post.
Need help for the same.
this is how i have inserted images in my article:
Earlier link was working but now the link "http://www.codeproject.com/KB/Articles/857981/1st.jpg"
is not working.
There are other images also having same issue.
Link for my article is:
Google Maps API on Windows Store App 8.1[^]
modified 31-Dec-14 0:15am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what I did. When the enter key is pressed, it starts a new block instead of moving to the next line in the same block.Because of this, space between 2 lines looks larger...
What Should I do to go to the next line of same block?
|
|
|
|
|
Change view to source to be able to change html tags, for example:
Replace:
<p>some text</p>
<p>some text</p>
with
<p>some text<br/>
some text</p>
to get single lin breaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Ctrl+Enter
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Guys.. 
Happy new year as well...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi.
I just finished and submitted an article under the following category:
Articles » Third Party Products » Reviews on Third Party Products and Tools
and after 30 minutes i got an email from a stuff member saying:
-------------------------------------
Thanks very much for your contribution to CodeProject. However, your article '' in the Reviews on Third Party Products and Tools section at
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ArticleVersion.aspx?aid=856593&av=1274207
has been deleted because it does not quite match our submission guidelines. Unfortunately this feels a bit more like a review of features rather than a review of someone who solved a problem using a particular product.
-------------------------------------
Yes of course it is a review can't they see the listed category !!!...
And yes of course the reviewed features are there to solve problems. that's why it is called e feature.
And the more ridiculous thing is that the article is not anymore available for editing.
Anyone else had the same issue ?
Any advice beside (Read the Manual)
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article is 'marked as deleted', and I think it is the OP. In other cases you can see the members and reason for closing it...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it. It's a bit annoying after I went to the trouble of resurrecting it for him.
|
|
|
|
|
"The dark side I sense in you."
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
No one ever turned to the dark side after feeling a little miffed.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Pete.
Sorry for the trouble, but there had been a mistake with my account and i accidentally marked the article as deleted.
Can you please re-enable it ?
I really apologize for what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately we still feel the article reads a little too closely to something you would receive from a marketing department. It is very feature focused rather than discussing how those features personally helped you or may help you. There is even a link inviting the reader to a free trial.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Sean.
I totally understand your concerns, so i would like to reply to you on the three points that you have made here.
1-) Article Author Motivation or Trigger:
I think that every one of the 11M members on code project, including me has a different motivation or trigger when writing an article, so i think code-project editors should not take this in account during the approval process. The article should be important.
2-) Article reads a little too closely to something you would receive from a marketing department:
It may happen that when reviewing a software you may end up with a similar way of writing as the other humans that are working on the marketing department do, but that doesn't make an article bad or not worth reading. Also there are a lot of articles under the Review of 3rd party controls that are very similar to my article and still have been approved.
3-) It is very feature focused rather than discussing how those features personally helped you or may help you :
As i mentioned in my first post the features i describe in the article are there to solve specific problems, like filtering a intellisense autocomplete list or how to give the users the ability to format a data-grid. Not every problem needs code as a solution !!!
4-) There is even a link inviting the reader to a free trial:
Will remove this link if i get access to the article again.
I have been a developer for the past 21 years and a code-project member since 2006. I have written a honest review article and i believe you should give it a second chance.
Sincerely.
|
|
|
|
|
Bledar Birbo wrote: you may end up with a similar way of writing as the other humans that are working on the marketing department do, but that doesn't make an article bad or not worth reading
But it might make him susceptible of being interpreted as spam
Bledar Birbo wrote: Also there are a lot of articles under the Review of 3rd party controls that are very similar to my article and still have been approved
Approved doesn't necessarily mean legitime or OK. We are at the end only humans and there are people who try to fool the system every minute. Sadly, some of them get through. If you have found some, you might rise them to be reviewed.
Bledar Birbo wrote: 3-) It is very feature focused rather than discussing how those features personally helped you or may help you:
... Not every problem needs code as a solution
I understand what Sean told you different as you. I think that the point is: To describe not only what it can, but to make it in a personal way. Like "I like feature X because it helps you to..." or "I found YYY nice because it makes the process easier than ZZZ" or things like that.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
C# MIDI Toolkit[^]
On the one hand, it's nice that they aggregated all the relevant code to get a compileable, working version, something I've been meaning to do for awhile but haven't had time. On the other hand, it would have been nice to have been asked about it first.
Someone did something similar to this years ago for another one of my articles, but In that case they asked for permission first (though it may not have been required, I don't know); I happily said yes.
|
|
|
|
|
They notified you...
And you gave your permission to do what they have done - MIT[^]
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
The license you associated with your article allows them to do this. At least they have given credit to you - I think it's nice, and it's certainly a compliment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like he first wrote his article and then posted the blog because the images in the blog are loaded from CP.
As a result, changing the type to blog would not work because the images will be gone.
|
|
|
|
|
My point is that someone copied that CP article and posted it at his own blog...
Normally the hamsters are deal with such things...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
You are right. It seems that the blog has been posted by a different person.
I did not noticed (and checked) this due to the same publishing date.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the catch! We're on it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
