|
Sent! both to you and webmaster email id!
|
|
|
|
|
This one[^]
Not sure if he is breaking any rules / laws but he sure as hell is getting on the nervs of people 
|
|
|
|
|
Sort of technical enquiry spamming!
|
|
|
|
|
I just voted to remove a message (doesn't happen much but well this one deserved it )
And I got this:
You or someone at your IP address has been voting too often. Please wait a moment and try again
Granted I did vote 2 message's before that (of the same person and for the same reason, completely wrong messages)
So am I to understand there is a voting threshold of only 2 votes in a given time?
|
|
|
|
|
Happened to me once as well - but that was a week or so ago.Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
It happens when your votes come too close together (it's happened to me a couple of thimes in the last few days). This was implemented to prevent univoting. If they have to wait between votes, they may lose interest in the process. Unfortunately, it sometimes spills over into normal site usage..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm k I can understand that but it wasn't like they where that fast behind each other.
I had to reload 3 different pages to vote and on the 3th it gave me that message.
Or maybe I'm just to fast for my own good
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: and on the 3th
Exactly how is that pronounced? "Thirth"?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I should have known better to use that in a reply to you 
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: Or maybe I'm just to fast for my own good
Isn't that what all the girls say?cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hey who have you been talking to???
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I need to remove this limit for gentleman of distinction such as yourself. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, are we getting a new rep category?
|
|
|
|
|
"Gentleman of Distinction"?
No, I think the servers would throw some null-ref errors on that one.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like Chris in jovial mood today!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could remove / refactor about 50% of the "stuff" on every page and the site would be 100% better for it. It's got too many options and links in too many places. It's starting to look like a coral reef instead of the nice clean professional site it surely should be.
There's 42 buttons / hyperlinks on this message editing form alone and they're *ALL* visible and in my face at once. It's starting to look more than a little amateurish in this day and age.
The reputation stuff and graph is all fine and dandy in an Asperger's geeky circle jerk kind of way but a little love put into the basics of a good, modern, clean looking site is not only practical, it's long overdue.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
We've been discussing this forever.
Part of the issue (that we have to get over) is that everyone wants something different. Some members want nothing - just content. Others want a million levers and pulleys. Us? Well, maybe we are a little aspergers geeky circle but your point is taken.
[Edit] How about we run a "redesign The Code Project" competition? We've tried it before with middling results, but I'm more than happy to give it another crack.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified on Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly what I forsee resolving this and many other issues is a bit of iron fisted dictatorship on your part. You can't ask the users about everything or you end up in a quagmire and nothing get's resolved and the UI starts getting all coral reefy trying to satisfy everyone.
If you think back over the years there have been many times when you guys made a change to howls of indignation, now I suspect even the most vocal don't even remember what they were against.
Surely it's good to elicit some ideas but at some point you have to say "This is what CodeProject is and will look like" and as long as the ideas are authentic and usable you simply can't go wrong (unless you get rid of the colour scheme, then it's a disaster  ).
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please let me know what you think of http://beta.codeproject.com/KB/asp/readfile.aspx[^] as a first step in cleaning up the pages. The article view page is the single most viewed page, hence I started there.
As to this edit page itself, any suggestions on how to cleanup / tidy up some of the options we have?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice, it looks more modern and clean instantly.
One suggestion to take it further: put the discussion area on a tab as well. Not only would that further clean things up but it would make it easier to participate in discussion while flipping back and forth to the article itself.
Revision thing is interesting as well however if this is a mock up and you're just considering it I wouldn't bother considering the amount of back-end work involved to implement and potentially huge storage implications versus the usefulness.
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
Why has the search feature on this site always been 10 pounds of trouble in a 1 pound bag?
On a site like this with boatloads of great content it's easily, far and away, the most important feature, yet easily the most neglected as well.
Here's the latest WTF search moment I ran into:
I wanted to cite an article to someone. I knew the article was written by Heath Stewart but it was so far back in the mists of time that's about all the concrete info I had on it. I punched in Heath Stewart in the search and selected Articles / Quick Answers and hit GO and I get a bunch or articles that reference Heath in them but not one single article of Heath's. WTF?
It took me forever hitting and missing with my search terms to remember enough to hit upon the article in question.
If search is truly as hard to implement well on this site as it's seemed to be over the years, why not hand it off to Bing or Google or something?
You guys are messing around with reputation points and other crap and letting the ball drop on the fundamentals. Usually that's a sure sign of an open source project that's going no-where (new features without fixing fundamentals) but that doesn't seem to apply in this case so what gives?
Yesterday they said today was tomorrow but today they know better.
- Poul Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
Thanks for the gentle feedback
On the search page there is a Advanced Search link. Click that, it expands more options, and allows you to search by member name directly (with or without keywords).
Is this what you are after?
Using Google or Bing and searching by name would still provide a list of articles that mentioned Heath, but weren't specifically written by him.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, as you know, I tend to agree with what John said. Search is very important, and what is offered isn't up to par. It should be easier to use, more intuitive, results should be observable in many ways (chronological is high on my list), and in the end the facility should be much more effective.
I forwarded my analysis of the situation to you about a year ago, nothing much has changed since; most of my observations would still be valid. I would like to include a link, but I fail to find it...
IMO using an external search engine isn't always good enough as the domain is well structured, something general-purpose engines aren't particularly good at, as your example points out.
I now suggest CP launches a competition about search specs. Not asking for an implementation, but aiming at a decent specification.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
