|
If you try and load the General India Topics forum in IE9, you'll find that the browser freezes up (or is very very slow in response). I think this is because of the top thread where there is a large text/html-based drawing/image.
You can load the page in Chrome, it's slow but it won't freeze up.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe if one of the Indian Forum moderators could moderate the message it would help the users of that forum.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I could delete that thread 
But I think there should be a size-limit enforced for posts. Since I think IE is just crapping out on the sheer length of the html used in that post.
|
|
|
|
|
 That's my post. I wondered when it was slow on loading, but never tried it in IE. I would surely replace it.
|
|
|
|
|
Replaced that fancy HTML to pure ASCII.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't dictate what members set their subject lines as. (ie We didn't add "edit", the author did)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that the post "knew" if it has been edited or not.
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Those posts tend to say Modified, not Edited.
|
|
|
|
|
This does not seem to be working.
I first noticed it on WPF Controls Tester[^] and tried on one other which also didn't work.
I tried on a published article and it worked fine.
So:
Is code no longer available for articles waiting approval?
Is it broken?
Is it me?
It's probably me, it usually is. 
Henry Minute
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
modified 30-Jan-12 7:49am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just you. Not this time anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely seems to be broken.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid unnecessary banning and the subsequent Lazarus-like revivals, couldn't we have move this to the SoapBox button for posts deemed inappropriate by the group. This seems less harsh than mark as abuse button.
|
|
|
|
|
I really like this idea. I would add a number of votes (maybe 5) from the community would move a post?
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Something like that, for example the same criteria as the vote to remove.
|
|
|
|
|
We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough, and allows Chris to decide if any further action is required.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough,
IMHO, it is not enough. Some posts don't need to be removed, they should just be moved to an appropriate forum. I think the community should handle stuff like this and not just Chris.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Some posts don't need to be removed
But that's just a matter of the reader's opinion. I might see a message that I think is more appropriate to a different forum, whereas others may think it should be removed completely. How many option buttons are we going to need?
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: How many option buttons are we going to need?
Only two. Move and remove should be the only ones. I feel they should have been there from the get go. Parts of this site should be completely self moderating in my opinion, and should not be moderated by one person alone.
If the majority feel that it should be removed, then it will be. However, if the majority of the community feel that it should be in the Soapbox or a programming forum then so be it.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as the "remove message" is unhooked from "remove user" then I'd agree. MM has been banned twice simply for using the language of the snooker hall in the lounge, whereas moving it to the SoapBox would have been enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and Chris has explained what happened and why. I don't think it was a big deal then, nor is it likely to be in the future. The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations, which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d good.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations,
which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d
good.
There's no need to bring that up here. Different websites have different business models. Google and Facebook are free for use too (apparently). Just because CP does not have a paid subscription does not mean members should shut up about problematic site features. If that were so, Chris wouldn't even have this forum here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: There's no need to bring that up here.
Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite relevant to me.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite
relevant to me.
Okay, I may have missed the previous discussion where the subscription model was discussed.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
