|
Luc Pattyn wrote: it seems sufficient for the article's author to launch a new version and all is gone;
Just a quick clarification: Messages and votes are only removed when an article is moderated and goes from 'Pending' to 'Available'. This is a one-time event. If an article is updated to a new version then the comments and votes stay.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: when an article is moderated and goes from 'Pending' to 'Available'
not sure what all these terms mean exactly (do they show somewhere as an article state?), however:
Chris Maunder wrote: If an article is updated to a new version then the comments and votes stay
is not matching my experience. Either there is some bug, or something changed recently, or the authors have an easy way to circumvent it. Could it be rather than launch a new version, they can easily remove the old, then put a new one that you accept as an entirely different article? I had lots of trouble last week getting and keeping my comments with the articles-needing-approval I voted down; and I noticed other comment messages (including some from Dave Kreskowiak) also disappeared on such articles.
I'd rather provide more detailed facts, I don't have any available right now. Those articles are rapidly moving targets...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
today's test shows messages do survive a new version of an article being installed.
There still remain two problems as far as I can see:
1. I had to add the same message over and over again to two or three articles last week; I saw nothing changed to the articles (did not really look at the version then), but every time I looked my messages (basically saying "there is no text, this is not an article") and any others were gone. I don't know how that is possible, my best guess is the author of the article removed the article, then reinstalled it identically. I do want something that prevents such behavior, e.g. a limit (of 2) to the number of new articles per author per day, and/or a 3-day embargo on titles and folder names belonging to articles that get deleted (all intended to stimulate new versions, not replacements).
2. Removing messages and votes on approval does not make sense to me. Approval does not change the content of an article (unless CP staff edits AND approves an article, as you just did), so it should not wipe out existing messages and votes.
Cheers,
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Of course I am in favor of anything that would improve article quality. But as Chris points out, anything that we can think up, can probably be bypassed or ignored.
My thinking now is that if a bad article is submitted, we give the author's home address to John.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: we give the author's home address to John.
That would be okay if someone subsidized the cost of ammunition for me.
Hans Dietrich wrote: Of course I am in favor of anything that would improve article quality.
Maybe someone shouldn't be allowed to post an article until they've been an *active* CP member for a year.
Maybe people should only be allowed to have ONE article in the pending approval pile at any given time.
Maybe people that have had an article rejected should be enjoined from posting further articles for a short time - perhaps five years.
Failing all of the above, I'm willing to take out care of people who continue to screw the pooch on article submissions, but if any travel is required, I'm going to need to be reimbursed.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Never experienced this when printing articles before, but the Print layout for articles now shows the CP orange color as a wide (1.75 inches wide) orange bar down the left margin of 1st page. Subsequent pages look OK.
Also code blocks that (should) extend over a page break are truncated AT the page break. I can confirm that in print preview. Don't know for sure that this is the first time I've seen this. Looking back through a couple of printed articles from a week or so ago, it appears as though the code blocks get printed properly even when they span a page break.
If it helps - IE 7 on WinXP Pro SP2. Printing to a Xerox Xerox WorkCentre 7665
|
|
|
|
|
First issue: sorted. Will update this afternoon.
I can't repeat the second issue. HAve you tried on other printers or with other browsers?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris -
Here at work I've tried it on an HP 4300 as well - same result. Have no access to any other browsers here. Found hard-copy of an article I printed last weekend at home using IE7 on Vista, printed on a little Okidata laser and, while it didn't TRUNCATE at the page break, it dropped about 5 lines of the code in the middle of a code block. I'll try it again at home this evening.
go into Print Preview and navigate to around page 17 of Karl Shifflett's article at
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WPF/WPFBusinessAppsPartOne.aspx?display=Print[^]
The code there runs to more than a printed page and I can only get one page to print. The top of printed page 18 starts with the next textual part of the article. About 10-15 lines get dropped.
If it might help, I can save to an XPS file and send it to you
|
|
|
|
|
The 'new message' button is missing in my member page, it's a new CP feature or simply my fault?
(Sorry if it is a repost).
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
It is a bug.
Am going to look at it now
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Elina Blank wrote: Am going to look at it now
Hello Elina, any update to this? Thanks
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I'm the slow coach here.
I was in the middle of updating the system and found a small bug that has required a lot of reworking and cleaning out of some deadwood (spring cleaning early). Just doing some final testing and will have the new code up in a jiffy.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Sorry - I'm the slow coach here.
No worries, just wondering is all.
Thanks for the update though
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
I do have one quick question for you, what ever happened with the RSS feed for all user blogs? It only looks like you can look at an individuals blog in RSS now.
Thanks
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks...
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP. Can you find some other way to take people off of the front page other than degrading our articles. It's really annoying I get a little insulted when you guys do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you feel that somebody has voted 3 to get rid of one of your articles? Maybe they voted 3 because they just weren't keen on it, or didn't understand it. Also - why do you think the Suggestions forum is the place to post this? One thing though - I'm now curious enough about your article to want to take a look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Look, this isn't just my articles. I've seen this done to everyones when they get a vote of 5 and then their article sits on the front page for the whole day. Someone places a vote of 3 and never comments. It's extremely rude if you ask me and I'd never do it to someone else. I consider this a "Site Bug" and thats why I placed it here. There has got to be someone out there who has noticed this too. Hopefully someone else will speek up too. I said my words and now I guess I'll shut up until someone else complains. I apologize if I sound like a whiner who can't face the fact they got a 3 on an article. That is not my intent. I love feedback, I just hate feedback that doesn't send me into a better direction.
|
|
|
|
|
At least it wasn't a 1. The forced comment for 1 and 2 votes probably saved you from a totally unrealistic vote. I don't use sharepoint, so I can't comment on the veracity of the code, and am therefore unqualified to vote on it, but it's certainly worth at least a 3. If I used SharePoint, and if the code works (and I'm sure it does), it's a 4. If I actually used the code and it solved a problem for me, it would be a 5.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
We may ask for a new feature: the home addresses of all article's voting people... 
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just saying... Every night someone votes a 3 on new articles (not just mine) without leaving a courtesy message on why. I'm not saying that my articles don't deserve a 3 but I'm saying they don't deserve a 3 just because someone is tired of looking at them on the front page. I would appreciate it if there was another way to take it off. I would rather it not be displayed on the front page then have it knocked because it's scoped to a specific audience.
|
|
|
|
|
Ny suspicion is that you've been downvoted by somebody who has an article that's also on the front-page or has just been knocked off and wants to get it back to the top. Possibly one way to get round this would be to ban somebody from voting on articles in the front page if they have just submitted an article (and then nullify any votes they've just placed if they post a new article within 5 days).
|
|
|
|
|
We're putting in place more voting diagnostics so we can find this sort of stuff and just nuke it.
The system's not perfect, but I think an 'ultimate' solution is pretty much impossible unless you force full disclosure of all votes.
...and then people just create anonymous accounts...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
