I had a post that I hadn't intended to upload to Code Project so I didn't mark it with the CodeProject tag. But it seems blogger has set the entire channel to also be marked as CodeProject and as such my article has been automatically consumed.
Is there anyway I can explicitly mark a blog post to not be consumed? (I don't want future posts to be marked as spam)
I have read Licenses. I want to submit an article of mostly original work under the CPOL license. One file in that article could be seen as a derived work covered by the Apache License 2.0. Can I submit under CPOL or does Apache License 2.0 overpower and zombify my article?
Zombify may not be the correct term, but I hope you know what I'm asking.
You can use multiple licenses for different parts and indicate this in the license section of the article. You may use for example the Apache license for your code, the CPOL for the article text, and a Creative Commons license for the images created by you.
It is even possible to use different licenses for different source code modules when the combination is allowed according to the used licenses. But this is a difficult legal aspect (see for example License compatibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]). So it would be better to use a single license for the code. An exception might by a demo application where the additional code not belonging to the basic work can use a different license.
When having different licenses you should add corresponding headers to all of your source files. But I suggest to do this anyway even when all is covered by one license.
Thank you, Jochen. Good information I couldn't find easily here.
I solved my derived Apache work problem by taking a different approach. I'd call the new work original but "obvious" now. Still, its good to know I could use an Apache License 2.0 header on one file and cover others by CPOL.
It is definitely his work - but when CP consumes a blog (as a blog) it automatically has a link to the original beside it...
My question is how CP tolerates a complete repost of an article, without any link? Does it acceptable, or should the author turn to the blog-consuming solution?
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Somehow, the update was pushed through and it seems to be published to everyone, but I can't quite tell, because suddenly it just appears when I click the link.
However, I did not receive points for updating (don't mind, just mentioning as part of the issue) and the article doesn't show as updated on today's date, which is interesting.
Any thoughts on this one?
Can everyone see the updated article?
I have recently started having my blog automatically consumed by code project which for the most part works fine.
The one line summary for each article is taken directly from the beginning of my article. This by itself I am perfectly happy with but a moderator informed my that the summary was truncated and that I should fix it.
So on that particular article I have adjusted the summary to be more meaningful, but going forward I won't be able to adjust the summary before it gets to moderation.
I am aware that I can adjust this by using the <content:encoded> tag but my blogging platform (blogger) does not enable me to use this.
So my main question is 'Is there anything I can do with my actual article text that will limit what is shown in the one line summary?'
ie. does it show the first paragraph, first header etc and stop.
or does it always try and load in the entire article?
And if it does what should I do instead? (If its an option I am happy to leave it being the first section of my article)
The article was deleted in March 2015.
Is there a source code download forthis article?
I'm aware there are many asp.net performance profiler tools are available in the market like glimpse ,jetbrain, miniprofiler and ANTS,etc. I would like to know Is there any tool which saves the profile data to Database with minor/minimal code changes?
I was having a discussion[^] with Sean that I would like to start here. As in that post, the difference and standard for a Tip and Article is pretty much unclear and it is not obvious, too.
Just to save the new users from shame and guilt they feel when they post Tip as an Article, why not set a requirement to post an Article, otherwise everything is a Tip?
10,000 points and you go without moderation, why not set a similar status, like 1,000 points and you can chose to post as a Tip or Article yourself, otherwise, leave that to Moderator during moderation to select the post type; Article or Tip. It depends on moderators to allow post as a Tip/Article anyways, so why not give them the tools to do so... It does require a second thought, you are free to have a few. Most of the users, as already mentioned, feel sad for their content won't have to undergo that pain if that is managed and maintained by moderator. Once, they come to know about the standard, they will start posting the content as per those standards.
I have been through the same situations, I posted a Tip as Article, learnt quickly. Most don't. So basically, this is not going anywhere, users are going to mistakenly post stuff off-topic, wrong type and much more. Set a filter to the new users and check their posts or allow moderators to do so, I am sure Mentor program was started for this sake. Right?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
why not set a similar status, like 1,000 points and you can chose to post as a Tip or Article yourself, otherwise, leave that to Moderator during moderation to select the post type; Article or Tip
Unfortunately I still see many, many, many moderators not understanding the difference.
I'm going to update the descriptions of Tip and Article to make it painfully clear what is what. The general summary is:
A tip should be a simple solution to a well-defined problem. "Trying to do X? Then do Y". There doesn't need to be a huge amount of explanation around the theory of what's going on.
An article should be a little more in-depth and doesn't necessarily solve a problem; rather it provides knowledge, or code, or an introduction, or a deeper understanding of an issue. "Here's a module I wrote for you to use", "here's how to use new some features in language X", "here's a deep dive into concept Z".
Think of the difference as being how long it takes to read and use a piece of content. A tip can be read and comprehended, and hopefully implemented, very quickly. An article will involve more time. A tip may be a couple of pages if there's lots of steps (or images) in the solution. An article may be very short if it's mainly the code that does the speaking (as long as the article explains enough of the code to be publishable.
Alternatively think of a tip as something that, when summarised, would be a good follow up to "Here's a quick tip for you...". There's actually very, very few articles written in this way, and it should be the standard we hold for an article to be a tip.
"Article" is the default type. A "tip" is actually (at the moment) a rare beast.
What I would really like is for members to report an item as "wrong type" and leave it as that. Approve the article, then report it, then let us review and correct if necessary, and it's all done very quietly. Even better would be for everyone to be on the same page as to what's an article and what's a tip, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so that probably won't happen.