|
Caffeine applied. Post un-stickied.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
[^] spam links are not deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Correct - but the question isn't visible if you're not logged in.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's been suggested before, but given the speed with which spam accounts are now being created, it would probably be a good idea to add a CAPTCHA to the sign-up form.
It won't stop them, but anything that slows them down and makes it harder for them to automate the account creation must be a good thing. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
This was implemented on a limited basis aimed directly at the spammers. It slowed them for a day then made no difference.
It's been a nice quiet few days until this latest wave so time to move onto the next stage of throttling their actions.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not me (i.e., I am Balboos).
Somehow I ended up logged in here.
There was a question (which, alas, I lost as I thought it was a login failure) asking something like is my email correct.
Anyway - maybe your logs will help figure out how I became not-me. I'm logging off and will try again.
|
|
|
|
|
Did logging out and back in fix the issue?
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like, way back when, you actually created two accounts with very similar email addresses. You must have given them the same password as you were able to log into the one you don't use.
It only has 271 rep points, so I would recommend deactivating it.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
I have 2.3K points but still not able to vote for the article contest. It says the below error :
You do not have sufficient Reputation to vote in this survey
Could you please suggest what prevents me to do so.
Regards,
Smruti
|
|
|
|
|
The total rep points are not relevant for voting on article contests. Relevant are the author and (I'm not sure but think so) authority points. It has been restricted to avoid abuse using fake accounts.
BTW: This has been asked before and can be found by feeding the message to a search engine.
|
|
|
|
|
As I've been reporting spammers again I've noticed that many times, when I paste a URL to a spammer, the linkifier doesn't work.
What I noticed over the last couple of days while reporting so many more, is that typically the first paste works, but repeated pastes in one message do not.
And I found a work-around that I hope will help identify the cause and a solution.
Typically, after pasting a URL (and it linkifies), I go to the bottom of the message, press RETURN twice and paste the next -- and it doesn't linkify.
Buuut... if I arrow up a line and paste, it works.
So, maybe it's an issue with not being able to paste at the very end? Maybe there needs to be a line after the paste?
IE 11 on Win 7.
|
|
|
|
|
For me works with "return + backspace", doesn't matter if last line of the message or not.
But... the "return + backspace" must be after the "copy" and before the "paste"
Don't linkify always same error the first two letters "ht" from "http" are missing.
Return + Backspace --> Linkify --> (always same behaviour) highlighted text starts two letters later... I mean: If I link a member while reporting, then instead of having "Member XXXXXXX - Professional Profile" highlighted, only "mber XXXXXXX - Professional Profile" is
Win 7, IE11 as well
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should be good now. We have a spam catcher is all, to shield us from the unending rain of spam tipped arrows that fall upon us.
Sorry you got caught in there.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I've been having this problem too the last couple of post attempts. If I write anything more than a sentence or two it removes it immediately. Posting as reply to not clog up the forums 
|
|
|
|
|
Someone is running through all of my recent Q/A answers and voting them 1.
If CP allows assholes to abuse productive members, you're gonna lose said productive members. Someone should probably have a word with this person (and I know that you can find out who it is).
If this was a case of a low-rep user playing around, I would just ignore it, but when I get 16 points deducted at a time, it's someone that's got a high-enough rep that they should f*ckin know better.
And yes, I'm highly annoyed.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for letting us know. I believe I've removed the downvotes (though the results of that will take a little while to show up, I suspect).
I think what we have here is a classic internet problem of using the wrong tool to communicate anonymously. I suspect this person was trying to send you a message that they don't like your answers (and unfortunately was applying that message whether your answers had merit or not). I'm going to have a talk with them about that.
I can see that you're helping a lot of people and I thank you for that. However, answers like, "I've contacted my spirit animal and they're telling me you're doing it wrong" are less helpful to users (even if it is hilarious). I can can appreciate the frustration with the questions in there, but in those cases please either ignore the question, or report it, or downvote it, or kindly ask for clarification if there's any hope, and move on.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for taking care of this.
I make no apologies for my answering style. Crap questions get crap answers (as life has already taught most people).
I'm kinda surprised nobody has asked me yet what my spirit animal is.
".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
modified 7-Nov-16 13:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to apologize for your answering style, but I'd ask you to refrain from posting a non-answer.
And I'll bite: What's your spirit animal?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
It alternates, based on my mood. Usually, it's "jelly donut", but today, it's been "Death" for most of the day.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: get crap answers
Then you shouldn't complain that crap answers get downvoted. 
Not sure if those are the ones you are referring to or not, so pardon my butting in. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The 1 votes were being given regardless of the answer. But they will disappear. I think. Probably by the time John's spirit animal goes back to jelly doughnut.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Ewington wrote: 1 votes were being given regardless of the answer
1 I looked at deserved a 1, in my opinion.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, I don't generally vote on answers, because it's up to the person posting the question to evaluate the answers.
Beyond that, none of my answers warrant a 1 vote, however, a lot of the questions do.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: because it's up to the person posting the question to evaluate the answers.
Really? I'm not sure why you think that. If that were the case then CP would only allow the poster to vote on an answer. For me, it is helpful when I come across an answer to see that it has a bunch of upvotes, or vice versa. It's a quick check to see how viable the answer is.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
