|
This article was published and accessible even to non-members despite work-in-progress flag in the submission wizard:
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5297157/Markdown-Calculator
I don't remember that I removed the check on the checkbox, but even if I accidentally did, I made sure the flag is there. Then I deleted the article, but it is still visible.
It is an essential problem because it makes a spoiler: the plan was to publish the article exactly on April 1st, 2021.
[UPDATE]
After a while, the content of the deleted article is not rendered anymore, except its title, subtitle, and abstract — still a spoiler.
It is shown as "deleted". Now, I'm not sure that I can update it while keeping it invisible to the readers. Will I be able to use the same URL when I publish it on April 1st? If not, will I be able to keep the same name and last part of the URL, ".../Markdown-Calculator"?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 15-Mar-21 1:33am.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much for your message. You should be able to update that deleted article and when you post it on April 1, it will be treated as a new article and will retain the same last part of the URL.
Currently people can only view the heading of your article if they use the link. It is not visible in searches or on the home page, and it is not visible in your article list.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Sean.
This is good enough.
Are you saying that I have to "uncheck to publish" as we do with not published but not deleted articles?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to make sure an article stays in Composing status, check the "work in progress box" before publishing. If you have a deleted article and check that box, the same should also be true.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just on The Insider News as far as I can see:
Is this another problem with Kent's flux capacitor?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
He needs to stop travelling at over 88mph.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
What is happening in the "quick answers" forum that marks a years-old post as updated? When you look at the post, nothing has been updated except for the date at the very bottom. 
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
It happens when a spammer tries to post a message into the QA entry.
|
|
|
|
|
As Richard said, spammers do a quick search and resurrect very old questions, then we spot and nuke them, which leads to the spammed thread to appear as "changed / edited" but there is not trace of the new content.
What usually ends up adding a couple of posts more because the people was trying to help, without realizing the question is that old.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
So is the date at the bottom of the post simply saying that some element of the post has been changed? If so, is there a way for the thing that updates that date to differentiate between an admin "nuking" spam content -vs- a legitimate post? In other words, don't turn on the "dirty" flag if the change was the result of spam being deleted.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
It's not so much an issue of turning on the flag. It's more about reverting the date if a deletion was due to spam.
Or better: Each time there's an edit/post/answer we simply scan the question and all answers and grab the latest date as the "last date something happened".
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think I suggested this a long time ago, but may when a question gets to be a certain age, it remains in the system, but nobody can post comments or solutions to it, and the question and all existing comments/solutions become read-only.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not keen on this approach purely on the basis that things change. In weeks sometimes. It's always handy to have someone come along and say "that worked 2 years ago, but here's how you need to do it now"
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, if the question needs to be asked/answered again with new info, there's no harm in asking again. My idea would simply stop really old questions (greater than 2 years) from bubbling back to the top of the queue.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I tried to unzip the contents of the zip file for Developing an App that Sends SMS Messages/b>
Download source files - 27.2 KB
On MAC it created more zip files and on the PC it informed me that there were no files in the zip file.
Please fix. 
C Villeneuve
|
|
|
|
|
It's certainly broken. We've reached out to the author and he doesn't have a working copy of the file. We'll look around but we're not hopeful unfortunately.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The author was able to find the file, so it should now be updated. Thanks very much for letting us know.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. 
|
|
|
|
|
in writing articles, under the categories there is platforms, frameworks and libraries.
in light of the attention IoT articles seem to receive these days, it would be super helpful if you could add "Arduino" and "ESP-IDF" to it. There are others, but each of those has a lot of users. ESP-IDF is a little narrower of an audience because it's device specific, but there's a lot of code out there for it so it's worth including for the same reason someone might include an Apple framework.
Also, if the tags around frameworks could include Arduino, and platformish categories could include "ESP8266", "ESP32", "AVR", and "STM32" that would be awesome
This isn't exhaustive but would cover a lot of IoT out there that people build with to start.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
The entire taxonomy is getting revamped in the next couple of weeks. It's sorely needed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
My heart goes out to whomever has to move articles into the correct categories.
I've actually cleaned up the tags[^] a few times. It's a losing battle against superfluous diversity, but maybe I'll do it again someday.
|
|
|
|
|
Another cleanup has been completed but as always just yell if there's an issue, you need a second opinion, or you have suggestions.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Not precisely the same topic, but on my Articles[^] page, the first one is classified under process (not even capitalized). There must be other articles in that category, but I don't see it listed under articles/Browse Topics/[^].
|
|
|
|
|
This has now been completely revamped. You no longer pick "a" section under which your article appears. You now just tag the article, and if a tag doesn't exist, you just add the tag to the list and a new tag will be created for you.
What we need to do is then categorise the new tags, which means setting its type (Platform, language, technology, or just "topic") and place it into the hierarchy if need be.
You'll notice under the Articles main manu, under 'Browse Topics' the flyout is now very different and focused less on it being all about desktop development and more about a taxonomy that reflects what we actually have (and are seeing posted) today. Internet of Things is right up there but I'm open to suggestions on tweaks.
One thing we deliberately didn't do was add RPi related tags under IoT. RPi, Arduino are used for a ton of IoT solutions, but are they actually part of IoT? Or are they hobby / teaching hardware platforms? Or do they go under Single Board Computers? Or...?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
