|
I vote to make Chris work for it. 
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
There is now a "Caption" class in the style sheet.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
... is not in the Message Boards dropdown menu.
Neither is Mobile development.
And the ADO entry finishes with a / with ADO .NET after it.
-- modified at 7:53 Friday 15th December, 2006
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
All fixed. A Ctrl+F5 may be needed to reload the menu correctly.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, works great !
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
the newsletter says:
"It is also article voting time so please visit the homepage for the voting pages and give those authors who helped you last month a little pat on the back."
This sounds like a nice idea. Too bad I can't locate this "homepage for the voting pages" place, so I can't visit it. Oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the homepage (http://www.codeproject.com[^]) and you will see, right near the top, a list of links to click on to vote for the articles.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
sorry. I still don't see it. Could it be because I use Firefox?
At the top of the page I see The Code Project logo at left, a banner ad at right. Immediately below that I see:
Home MFC/C++ C# ASP.NET .NET VB.NET All Topics
...on the left side, and:
Help! Articles Message Boards StoreFront Lounge
...on the right side. Nowhere do I see "Vote" or "Voting"...
I can't use search to find the voting page because it's not an Author or an Article.
There are no options in the Articles dropdown that are obvious choices, either -- I see:
Latest; Most Popular (could that be it? didn't see it at that page); Search (couldn't find it there); Site Directory (nor there); ...
I can't find any reference to voting for favorites, although I see "most popular"... does that just mean "highest average rating"? most page views?
I just wanted to "pat on the back" 2 authors who helped me. It may be really easy, but not for me, unless it's just based on the "rate this article" (which I did).
If I ever get the answer I s'pose I'm bound to feel stupid, but obviously I'm used to that by now 
|
|
|
|
|
Read down a bit further. Below "Welcome to The Code Project", below "Join CodeProject Today", you'll see: Current Surveys. Click on any of the links in that box...
|
|
|
|
|
u neek wrote: sorry. I still don't see it. Could it be because I use Firefox?
It could be because you have the observational skills of a two-slice toaster.
Seriously, it really is kinda hard to see - it's Labeled "Current Surveys" (which is NOT the best naming they could have come up with), and it's right above the "Feature Article" block (which is somehow easier to see - go figure).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: It could be because you have the observational skills of a two-slice toaster.
I must add that one to my growing list of sigs 
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
After reporting a post as spam or abuse, I think we should be still able to give it a rating (usually to vote 1 for spam or stupid messages like this[^]). We aren't able to vote for a post which we've reported as spam/abuse.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
Why vote for it? This will just give the spammer what they want. The "report" button is there to notify the moderators of problem posts, which should in turn lead to the post being removed (not that this happens often).
|
|
|
|
|
WalderMort wrote: Why vote for it? This will just give the spammer what they want. The "report" button is there to notify the moderators of problem posts, which should in turn lead to the post being removed (not that this happens often).
Generally people opt to vote 1 (I tell this because when we see such spam posts, there are tens of 1 votes, graying down the post) and they don't mark it as spam because they aren't able to do it together. So my suggestion would be that marking a post as spam or abuse must be isolated from giving it a rating.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
A lesser vote should decrease or gray out the post and hence spams would eventutally subsede from the view.
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: subsede
Were you trying to tell subside? My concern is that even if I vote a spam message a 1, I still would like to report to an admin about the same by clicking on the "report spam" link, which we are not able to do now. Getting it now?
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting a post automatically gives it a 1 vote too.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote: Reporting a post automatically gives it a 1 vote too.
Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks a lot Mike. *satisfaction*
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] article appears to be 404.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I highly appreciate your site and regularly experiment code from the articles. A question arises: why don't you suggest a specific rule to document code so it can be much easy to understand and reuse? It should be nice if a doc (chm?) were associated to every revised article code.
STroiani
|
|
|
|
|
STroiani wrote: why don't you suggest a specific rule to document code so it can be much easy to understand and reuse? It should be nice if a doc (chm?) were associated to every revised article code.
That would be nice, but it is hard enough to get some people to stick within the existing article posting guidelines - how much more effort it would be to get them to document their code correctly as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree. I'm a developer so I know how hard is to make (good) SW doc. But a first simple step can be trying to figure out what can be made about communication of design ideas and implementation present in the code.
For a long time I used Doxygen; due to my limits I simply can't guarantee that code commenting is adeguate to code meaning. Moreover, too much comments make source code very heavy to read. So what?
I wish something separated from the code that quickly can offer a picture of the code structure, explain the code items and outline the code (execution) paths.
Do you know something already exists? What do you think about?
|
|
|
|
|
Documentation in the form of chm, doxygen or any other similar means is unwarrented for the type of projects/articles shared on this site. We are already provided with a html page dedicated to the code in question, this page 'should' contain all the information a developer requires. In the case that it does not, I couldn't imagine downloading a seperate article/introduction to the code would make any difference.
In my opinion, documentation files are only warrented with larger projects and projects which tend to be updated frequently. This type of project would not be shared on a site like this, but rather have a dedicated website which is much more tuned towards development, bugfinding and user feedback. A site like sourceforge.
It would however be nice if article submitters would comment their code, especially the header files, in a more developer friendly manner.
Slightly off topic, would it be possible for the CP website to intergrate a zip viewer? This way a user could peek at the contents of a zip file before downloading. I understand this comes with a risk, but surely all zips are scanned for viruses before being linked in a page.
|
|
|
|
|
We have guidelines[^] and a template but they are not followed 100%.
CHM defeats the purpose of what we have here and authors do not typically have the time, resources or enhusiasm to go to the trouble of creating CHMs or PDFs or whatever. We have HTML. It seems to work pretty well so far
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
