|
|
Works for me in FF3.6 and Chrome 5.0. As I resize the width of the window, the text reflows. Standard behaviour all round.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
hello
Something not present on the Bug List.
When i browse posts on the articles, when i expand a post, the page always jump up, and i lose the post from sight, have to scroll down again.
It does not happen on the other foruns (like this one), only on the article ones.
I'm using Google Chrome (4.1.249.1064 (45376)).
It appears to work correctly on other browsers.
Example Article where this happens to me.
KRBTabControl[^]
Thanks
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
This is on our bug list (sorry - haven't had a chance to update the one above )
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think it would be nice to award high-reputation members (and tenure) with the ability to add small images to their sigs, and even the ability to put size-restricted images in their messages. I don't know how you'd define "high-reputation", but the possibility of abuse *should* be fairly low given the level of repuation/tenure we'd probably be talking about here...
.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 agree. And I have already freed up some sig space, I like to be prepared.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should mention that. I've been exploring just that topic over the last couple of days.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
If you add images to signatures, can we please have a checkbox in member settings to make it invisible.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, users should be given the opportunity to block images in messages/signatures.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
The required rep total to unlock this should not be changed as this would be moving the goalposts.
|
|
|
|
|
to preserve download bandwidth? on some 16*16 images? or do you plan on something naughty?
|
|
|
|
|
You seriously think people will post only 16x16 images?
(and a well wording request to keep images below a certain dimension and filesize will disuade few)
This feature has to be easily policable. It will only take 1 or 2 bad experiences for it to really cause problems.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I think your server farm and hamster collection could impose an image size limit.
JSOP asked for 16*16; not sure what purpose it would serve other than livening up a sig.
Personally I wouldn't mind having a way to put a real drawing or screen shot in a message, illustrating the topic at hand.
So I would allow IMG tags that refer to CodeProject only; give upload capability to whomever you choose to offer the feature (and probably make capacity rep color dependent); and add a boolean field to the account record, enabling it once a year based on whatever criterion you choose, and disabling the feature at the first abuse.
The main problem I see is dangling IMG references: when upload capacity is limited, the uploader might be inclined to remove older images to allow for newer unrelated ones, leaving existing messages in a damaged state.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have with letting random users post images is that some will be stupid/immature/spammy enough to start posting the sort of garbage that gets a website blocked because it hosts pron/etc.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
which is exactly why I suggest:
1. CP hosted images only,
2. and some admission criterion (say some gold rep)
3. and an individual flag that can be reset upon abuse.
With those in place, I don't expect many problems; it is somewhat like CP articles where images are accepted and applauded. It is not like one can create a new account and start including all kinds of images unrestricted.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget, this would only be for high-reputation users. (I don't know if Chris has defined "high" yet.) That would imply that the users capable of doing this would have enough savvy and maturity to not do "stupid shit" (tm).
.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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: enough savvy and maturity
Yeah - like deliberately working around whatever filters I put in place "just coz I can".
You see my problem here?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The message would have lost its true meaning if I hadn't done that.
.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'm less than optimistic on this front. Look in the troll pit. The Biggest Idiot[^] active in it has blathered his way to platinum.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
My original post also specified that tenure also be considered (but only AFTER the user has met the reputation requirements). Besides, at CSS's rate (that account is less than 2 years old), it would take him 30 years to get to 50,000 rep points.
I would definitely be in favor of requiring a minimum level of the most important reputation categories, along with "time in service". Since we're talking high-rep users, the required reputation points would be significantly higher than merely blathering to platnum status in one category.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
IMO debator points are useless. That is exactly why I regret discussion messages in programming forums follow the enquirer-authority-debator-debator-...debator pattern by default (as anything beyond the top-level answer defaults to message type "general").
The real rep categories to consider for granting specials are mostly author and authority. You won't win those backstage.
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm going to offer images, I may as well do it properly. (To the select, special few?) 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Whatever you do, we expect you to do it properly. 
I see two groups of potential users:
1. the established CP users providing quality answers, they deserve to have the tools to illustrate their replies; IMO the group is identifiable by authority rep and will not pose behavioral problems at all (well, no more than their textual replies do right now).
2. all enquirers, having some design, layout or rendering problem; they would benefit from showing a class diagram or a screen shot while asking how to solve the problem. This group is not easily identified, and when entirely open to everyone, is also open to frequent abuse. Maybe a minimum number of (non-Lounge, non-backroom) posts is a useful criterion here.
You could start with (1), and when that works out fine, do an experiment with (2).
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't really seeing this as something for everyone, just those that have achieved a certain (high) level - something to strive for - a reward for heavy and active participation.
.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 understood that; sig pimpability could be some kind of a reward.
Chris turned it into message images in general, which I wouldn't object to; only then I suggested to do a two-step approach.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
Now with 24% more Twitter