|
There are First Prev Next links at the top, just above the first message on the right.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I saw them... since we already have used that space it would be great to have the pages too. Not a big issue though 
|
|
|
|
|
Too messy.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you could do this:
[First] [Prev] [...] [Next]
When [...] is clicked, it could expand to show the numbers:
[Prev] [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9] [Next]
Maybe you don't persist it. That way, when a postback occurs, the user would revert back to the main view:
[First] [Prev] [...] [Next]
That would prevent you from having to remember that setting on a per-user case and having to provide a mechanism to collapse the numbers.
Probably too much work for very little benefit though. So, uh, my real suggestion is to change the top [Prev] and [Next] to match the bottom [« Prev] and [Next »].
While you're at it, maybe you should change [First] to [α First α]. 
|
|
|
|
|
When I get reply emails, they seem to have started ending in:
[SITE_NAME]
[SITE_URL]
immediately above the line:
Note: This message has been sent from an unattended email box.
It seems to happen to users who do have a link set in the profile page, and not those who don't.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
+1
thatrajaNobody remains a virgin, Life screws everyone 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, my bad. We have two systems for replacing tokens and the wrong one was accidentally used after an update of email templates. I'll be fixing these at lunchtime today.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'll be fixing these at lunchtime today.
I always thought having the liquid lunch first was the prerequisite to being creative in the afternoon.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
There's always morning tea.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I saw couple of duplicate answers(When you post an answer in Q/A section, there you could see double entry rarely). Sample one[^]. Also I saw others(SAKryukov, Uma Shankar Patel,..,). Isn't possible to restrict that? I think you can't post duplicate entry on forums(I saw message like "Item already posted there") when you try to do that.
thatrajaNobody remains a virgin, Life screws everyone
|
|
|
|
|
I've had it happen to me a few times too - I suspect in my case it was "mouse bounce" and two "Post Message" clicks happening in very quick sucession (I did have a fault with a mouse button not holding cleanly).
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
when you can't blame the cat, blame the mouse?
|
|
|
|
|
No, there was some dirt in the uSwitch which caused "unclean" contacts - so it bounced, and released when I dragged, and so forth. PITA!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
This is a current issue but we're planning on fixing this.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
When trying to access an article via mentor group, I always seem to get a message:
This article is still being written and is not currently available for general viewing.
This happens even though I'm participating in the CodeProject Mentors.
Is this because of my current Author level or what could be the reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. Seems like it was a profile error. Try now?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, now I'm able to open the articles, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=4158141#xx4158141xx[^]
RJOberg makes a very good argument here. Balboos' post was reported as abuse. Heated and passionate, but not abuse. He still has to sit with that many points against him? This doesn't seem right not me.
I only bring attention to this because saying something offensive is not the same as being abusive. A one vote for offensive is Ok but -160 points for hurting someone's feelings is a bit much in my book.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
modified 15-Feb-12 14:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The report system is designed to allow for members getting shirty and hitting it in anger. A post requires more than one person to knock it off. As to the spurious loss of points, that happens. Is there an alternative that provides a mechanism to report abusive messages while allowing free speech? Keep in mind that solutions such as "only allow this for members over X rep" don't work.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Having found myself dragged into this (or putting my foot into it), I noted one remark a few times, which is that 'Report Abuse is the New one'.
Here's a potential solution: don't give the report-abuse a point value (at least) until an item is actually considered abusive. This would, I conjecture, prevent the above paraphrased remark from becoming reality and simultaneously destroying the credibility of the abuse flag.
Seems like a possibly improvement if not solution.
Better Living Through Vegetables
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Now *that* is a good idea.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
As someone has now gone on a spree with calling my posts abuse (even opinions on hot chili pepper cultivation) I may have to recant my suggestion.
It has simply decayed into a mechanism for harassment. It's easy to create new accounts, so, even were you to expunge all of the culprit's damage, they would just create a new account and do it again (harassing you, as well). Perhaps it should just go? Abuse/span certainly exists, but it would seem an alternative mechanism needs to be developed.
Never shy for suggestions: perhaps disabling until one reaches some minimal level for this option - thereby pretty much eliminate rogue accounts.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: disabling until one reaches some minimal level for this option
The guys who engage in this pettiness usually have sufficient rep. Minimum rep levels don't solve these types of issues.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum rep would mostly solve the issue of sock puppet accounts created for the purpose of reporting messages as abuse. Though, you might already be doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
I do think Balboos's proposal, if I understand it correctly, is a good idea.
I'd like to see the CP staff use their collective wisdom, and overview of the site-as-a-whole, be the primary determinant of what is judged abusive, or not.
I would like to see the "abuse flag" kept as part of the possible post-reaction options, and I would hope the CP staff would take into account the number of "abuse reports" in making a decision on whether a given post is truly abusive or not ... in fact I would assume that would occur.
Whether, once a post has been judged as "abusive," then some weighting of the number of abuse reports should be calculated into the resulting negative rep score: I'm not sure on that one.
I think I'd rather see a post finally judged "abusive" have some equivalent of the "scarlet letter" put on it, than bother with the minutiae of figuring out how many points per abuse report the OP should lose. Color it pink ?
I also find some merit in Mark Merrens' description of an 18 month old post being reported as abuse as being at the very least "suspicious."
It would not bother me if the report abuse flag was not available on posts over 30 days old. I can still voice my opinion on the post by responding to it as forcefully as I like, and down-voting it. And, if it had enough #1 votes, it would still get snuffed ... right ?
If there are frequent incidents of reporting old posts as abuse, and the CP staff has to "investigate" them for possibly being some form of revenge, vendetta, etc., I think that's such a waste of CP staff time.
best, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
