|
Also reported below: No notification...[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I reported it 4 days ago but not reply.
It does happen about once a year. Last time the answer was "System kicked". It did help. I hope it will be kicked again.
|
|
|
|
|
On a user's profile page, the "Tech Blogs", "Articles" and "Tips/Tricks" links all link to /Articles/{username}#section.
But when there is a duplicate username, it picks the wrong user.
For example, KevinNg[^] (member 12960852) links to the page for kevinng[^] (member 1170924).
The same problem applies to the "@" link at the top of the profile page.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it rang a bell! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed my discussion posts get flagged as spam for a while. I wanted to ask 'why' and apparently there is no "Contact us" link.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
aboubkr90 wrote: I wanted to ask 'why'
Blame Thomas Bayes[^]. 
As I understand it, there's no fixed set of rules for what is and isn't flagged as spam. Instead, the system uses Bayesian probability to compare your message to previous messages, and decide how likely it is to be flagged as "spam". If the system thinks it's too similar to previous "spam" messages, it gets added to the moderation queue.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't explain the absence of "Contact us" link though.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you want the messages deleted?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, both of them. Can you please help me? Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
rolls up sleeves
Done!
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 14-Feb-17 14:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This recent Tip of mine: Read a Resource File from an assembly[^] had a message from Pete four hours ago, but I didn't get an email. I did however get an email when Deeksha updated it (which is what drew my attention to Pete's comments).
So ... for the first time, I clicked on "View all notifications" to see if I'd missed anything else.
And... NoNotifications.jpg (121.7 KB) Apparently I don't have any ... 
The lack of notifications on the page I can live with, but not getting the email is a bit odd. Could you have a look and see what bit bucket it ended up in?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
The notification list should now be working, but I'm still working on the notifications.
Sorry for the delay on this but I've had Matthew tied up on new projects all week and I've been bed ridden with the dreaded lurgie all week.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the problem:
The article in question is this one: The Impossibly Fast C++ Delegates.
Originally, I created an article based on the idea of this one and wanted to offer it as an alternative. Importantly, I primarily want to write an article on the topic and credit the author for the original idea, secondary goal is offering the alternative, and yet, having a reference to my article from the page of the article referenced above is useful enough. Moreover, there are other articles on the topic (at least one) where I also want to place a reference to my article as alternative.
My article, after original posting, is here: The Impossibly Fast C++ Delegates, Fixed. I really don't want to move it anywhere, change URL (links already sent to interested people), anything like that.
I followed the steps of adding to the Alternative and found myself publishing another article. For now, I just put a reference to my original article, but this is not what I want. I don't want to multiply fake articles, or legitimate posts formally counted as "articles". Of course, the closest solution would be just removing the second article from Alternative, but I'm not doing it yet, as I hope for more reasonable solution.
Can it be resolved somehow?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 13-Feb-17 22:45pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not 100% clear on what you're looking for so let's take this step by step. If you want to write an alternative article to this one:
The Impossibly Fast C++ Delegates
You would have gone to his article, and clicked "Add your own alternative version." Alternatively, you could do what you have done is what you did, and create an entirely new article and simply referenced at the top of yours that you got the initial idea to create an article from another author.
If you were hoping for others to create alternative articles to your article, I believe the course of action you took was correct. I don't think you can make alternative articles from alternative articles. If that's your ultimate intention I suggest you leave your original article as is and remove your own alternative article to your own article. Anyone can make an alternative article of your article because it is a brand new article.
However, if you wanted all alternative articles to be originally based on this article:
The Impossibly Fast C++ Delegates
then you would have to have written your article as an alternative to that one, and hoped that others did the same.
Since I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, please feel free to follow with more questions (as an additional side note, I am as of yet unable to remove the vs2013 tag from your article. I encountered this problem once before and was unable to resolve it).
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Sean.
I understand all that. Let me explain where is the issue with that.
First of all, my article was published before dealing with the Alternatives. I don't want to have excessive (fake) articles, just a text with reference. So, I could publish a whole article as "alternative".
It would be referenced as "alternative", and probably it would be referenced as the regular article (from news, the author's publication lists and so on) — with no other differences. Question #1: is that correct?
If so, I could delete my original article and re-publish it as "alternative". Question #2: But would it preserve its present URL (https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1170503/The-Impossibly-Fast-Cplusplus-Delegates-Fixed)?
But doing things just this way may not be a solution for a more advanced case. By their nature, the "alternative" is a many-to-many relation. An article can be considered as an alternative to more than one article. (And that is much less important, in my case.) If, say, an article can be considered as alternative to 3 earlier articles, it should be expressed as 3 references to the same (single) article, and the references should not be counted as 3 "articles". I just know that adding such "reference-only" article would just cause irritation in some members. So, question #3: can such many-to-many situation work out somehow? I'll understand if not, because it may need the redesign. But then it could be my proposal.
I hope I made it clearer. Sorry if you feel some confusion.
Thank you very much.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'm closer to understanding.
1) We don't see many alternative articles, but yes, to my knowledge your alternative article would be in the newsletter, the daily build, and the home page. We set up our twitter to mark new articles and there was a tweet about your alternative article as well.
2) No, the URL would change. I think you should probably keep your article as is, pending on what you want.
3) We currently only have the ability to set up alternatives to a single article. Once you create an alternative article, you can't create an alternative of the alternative. I suppose you could create as many alternatives to the original as you want, and each alternative would get the same points alternative articles get and so on.
Alternative articles don't really work out as we intended, I find. The idea is to do what you did, and create an entire, fully formed article based on another article's ideas, just presented a different way or with a different take. But most people don't use it that way, sadly.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much, Sean.
Still, let me say that my idea of many-to-many and reference posts is my suggestion.
One clarification: the change of URL. I do understand that if one adds second (identical) article and then remove fist article, the URL will certainly be different. By what if one deletes first article and only then creates a new one? After deletion, the URL of the first article would be considered vacant and can be reused. Is that right? I can test it.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
The article is is not vacant. Technically the article would still be there, just not visible to the public. I'm guessing the reasoning was that sometimes people delete articles by accident or change their minds.
To the best of my knowledge article IDs don't get reused.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Thank you again.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
|
The publishing system sniffs the project files and if it sees technologies it thinks should be added (eg a VS 2013 solution) it'll add that tag so readers have a clue as to where they can use the source code.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
