|
It's a CDN. If you look at the source of this page, you'll see that most of the images and stylesheets are loaded from that domain.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic Difference Between Local Storage and Session Storage in HTML 5[^]
I just asked author about my doubts as the title says "Difference between..." and there is not a single difference mentioned on the page. When i received response that he uploaded some images but that's not visible at the moment, i found the content has approved version. I'm still not clear why to accept that as Tip/Trick.
QA is already a big mess. If we will start approving even such Articles/Tips, that will strongly affect the overall quality of this site. I think, it has started already e.g. you can have content like this[^] and this[^] as Tip/Trick.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
This has been debated many times and was even the object of a poll[^]. A lot of people are seeking Internet reputation or CP reputation just by getting their mate to approve of their articles.
In a nutshell, so far:
- Making public who has approved or rejected an article is, for some reasons I still cannot understand, considered a bad thing. I am convinced it would slow down a little bit the BS approving, for instance because people farming rep points would be clearly identified.
- The reputation points to allow moderation should be set higher, and the moderation privilege shall only rely on technical inputs. I usually take my own case as an example : I should not be allowed to approve or reject articles, since I got this privilege solely from having upvoted posts in the Lounge, which is certainly not an evidence of me having the skills to decide whether a content is appropriate and relevant for the site.
- Filtering quality early in the chain (so reducing the total amount of articles) is not an objective of CP(*) : CP lives thanks to traffic, e.g. number of people visiting, not thanks to content quality, e.g. number of people being happy with content or effectively finding something useful here. The more articles, the more hits on google search, and the more hits on google search, the more traffic... Sorting out bad from good content is done by people up and downvoting articles once published.
(*)This is my understanding of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: The more articles, the more hits on google search, and the more hits on google search, the more traffic...
This is debatable. If I google for info and go to a place in several ocasions just to waste my time. It will get into my black list and won't go back "just to check if now is better"
In other words, I prefer fewer but better.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depends who you talk to.
I'll review and make an ill-advised, arbitrary snap decision on which way it should go.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Depends who you talk to.
It's unexpected because it's only just started occurring. So someone changed something quite recently...
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: So someone changed something quite recently...
I suspect it was the new Markdown formatting option.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
System kicked. Should be good now.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can't count downloads offsite. We could trap clicks to offsite hosting of code, but we can't then tell whether they've merely visited a page or actually downloaded the code.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - obviously system is easy to trick... but so is current one - i.e. I could just put up link to empty zip (or text file with link to GitHub) and say it source code download.
So, I am wondering, could we find a way to improve this? Like if you are against counting clicks to repository (even though it's the same thing - intent is to browser source code) could I link to zip that downloads repository:
https://github.com/lepipele/csharpWebCam/archive/master.zip[^]
I definitely think that linking Git repository is improvement over linking zip with source code and people shouldn't be penalized for using it.
Thanks for listening and let me know what is decided - I could help with implementing this if you are short on dev resources.
|
|
|
|
|
We (speaking as a community member rather than as a CP staff member) definitely prefer projects to have at least a version of your code here on CodeProject rather than out in CodePlex. Part of the reason for this is that it's incredibly easy for a project and an article to get out of sync if they are hosted in different locations. At least, if we have a version here, we have a project that is a snapshot taken at a point in time. By all means, link out to your CodePlex/Github/etc article, but have a version here.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean - you can view this problem from different perspectives. But the core of the problem is if I leave version of code here on CodeProject people will download that version of code and then CAN'T CONTRIBUTE. Exact reason why Git was invented.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no reason to shout. Of course they can contribute. That's why I said provide a link to your CodePlex/Github/whatever version. How hard is it for you to put a comment on your article that people should go to your repo to get the latest version if they are looking to contribute? Try looking at the problem from this perspective - suppose someone chooses one of the many, many, many online repositories and then just provides a link to that from their article. Now, take this further and imagine what happens when Google takes this source provider over and decides two years down the line to close it because it no longer aligns with their core business. Now where do people go to get the code?
|
|
|
|
|
OK - I tried... wasted my time as always. Status quo it is.
EDIT: I did type quite long response but didn't see the point - I am not here to argue; rather wanted to help with better handling of problematic case.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
Not only because of companies might take over the hosting provider. There are many code hosting sites out there and the author himself might someday want (or has) to change the site he's hosting his code on (e.g. not too long ago a hosting provider shut down after he got hacked). If the article doesn't get updated there isn't a working link to the code any longer.
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, recording a click outside to another site is easy, but tracking what happens on that site is impossible. We simply can't tell what's going on outside of CodeProject.
At a deeper level, reputation points are for what people do on CodeProject, not what they do outside of CodeProject. If we support GitHub then we also have to support BitBucket, and CodePlex, and SourceForge, and then what about gists, or Samples on JSFiddle? It goes on an on.
I understand where you are coming from and it's a nice idea, but for sanity's sake we'll keep it simple.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I disagree with some points - but as I said to Pete - I'll stop wasting everyone's time and figure out what I can do on my own on this topic. Maybe add text file to zip with source code or something... will see what works best with what is available to me.
Thanks for taking time to respond and I appreciate that you said you understand the idea - who knows maybe something will be done about this down the road...
|
|
|
|
|
Today when moderating articles, I gave the 4th approve vote to an article. For the sake of testing, I refreshed and voted to approve again, but instead of saying "4", it now said "1". Then I tried the same on a different article, and the same there! Instead of saying "4" twice, it said "4" the first time and "1" the second time.
Do approve votes get lost?
(For the people who wonder why I decided to test this: I recently noticed that it hardly ever happened that I gave the last approve vote for articles, and a few months ago that happened way more frequently; so I decided to see what happens here, and I got to this strange result.)
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
If the author updated their article in between votes then the approval count gets reset.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I see... it's still strange though that this happened twice, with a delay of less than a minute.
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
Other langauge is not displayed in Technical Blog.
Click here 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
