|
The QA page shows the time a question was posted, and the tags associated with it, but no indication about which member asked the question. I can think of arguments both for and against adding the member name (and maybe a link with hover) to the main page. It might be argued that not knowing who posted the question might mean more people will look at it. On the other hand, knowing who asked the question might help those who are likely to respond to given question to decide if it's something they want to do.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
k5054 wrote: knowing who asked the question might help those who are likely to respond to given question to decide if it's something they want to do.
Why? I can't think of a single reason that knowing the OP name would persuade me to look at a question. I can think of reasons why knowing a name might dissuade some people from looking - but most of those are probably based on assumptions about race and / or gender from the given name, which I don't think we really want here.
So why add it? When do you think it will encourage people to give help they otherwise might not?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Questions had the names of the author for years, and it was changed to the current way. I don't know the reasons back then, but I suppose there were some valid, if not I don't think the change would have been implemented.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible to add the ability to get the brief info about a member in QA like you get in the discussion forums? It might be useful to be able to get the reputation of either a Questioner or an Answerer quickly.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
not a bug, or suggestion.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
They are not. Maybe you clicked the Java tab on that page.
|
|
|
|
|
Set the preference to '.NET and look at the linked stories: do you see a majority about .NET ?
I believe I had my preference set to 'All.
If Java is a big part of CP, great !
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
No, still don't see any Java articles.
|
|
|
|
|
do I have to send you the titles and tags of the articles that appear when the home page is filtered by .NET that are tagged Java, and do not directly relate to .NET, literally ?
Please keep contradicting and one-upping everything I say: it's so refreshing 
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: do I have to send you the titles and tags
It would be pointless since I have no way of fixing your problem. You should take a screenshot and add it to your original question so the team (probably @matthew-dennis) can see it.
[edit]
Calm down dear, I am not contradicting anything, merely stating what I see.
[/edit]
modified 16-Feb-23 4:23am.
|
|
|
|
|
It remembers the last category for the last article that you read. I just tested this with Java tab and java article.
My original state for articles was IoT.
I close my browser come back to codeproject.com and the Java tab is active.
I believe this is by design and seems normal to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, I got this when refreshing the C# forum:
Reopening it in a new window didn't give the alert so at a guess it's an advert?
The whole message isn't to helpful for debugging if you inspect:
<span class="url-section-wrap__url url-section-wrap__url-foreground_custom" title="https://www.codeproject.com/Forums/1649/Csharp.aspx">https://www.codeproject.com/Forums/1649/Csharp.aspx</span>
But I'll keep the window in case there is anything there you can use - the CP page itself isn't available as far as I can see though.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Oh man. Kaspersky and their false positives.
Is there a way to submit this to Kaspersky for review? Members have done that numerous times over the years and anti-virus have been generally fairly responsive.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'll see what I can do ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks mate.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If we ask really, really nicely... can CP implement a user blocking feature? The social aspect to CP is wonderful. We all love it. Unfortunately, there will be clashes. From my understanding, we've lost the soapbox for this very reason.
But, as an alternative to removing forums, would CP ever consider adding a user blocking feature? A lot of other social sites have that to deal with harassment issues, and it would be a good way to allow users to handle the situation quietly.
If you're uncertain if the public would want this (I bet they do)... can always ask the question in a poll.
Soooooo.... can we get this? Huh? Huh? Please please please?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Short answer: No
Longer answer:
thread for the same request[^]
Chris' answer with some insider details[^]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: What if at the very least we're able to stop notifications and "gray" out the posts for a blocked user?
You can switch notifications off in your settings and you can ignore the message writen by whoever pretty easily.
As it is said: Two don't discuss, if one doesn't want to
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.
|
|
|
|
|
But that's all notifications rather than per user right? I mean I get it if nobody wants to make this feature. Actually, I don't get it, but it's not my site. lol
Every other social site has this feature, sans SO. But, a little more granular control isn't a bad thing. Forcing people to deal with angry, immature folks isn't a discussion. It's a waste of energy and time and only gets in the way of real chats.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But that's all notifications rather than per user right?
Yeah, that's right.
I agree with you, that deactivating notifications of a "black list" should be a bit easier than the other options and worth a try.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: As it is said: Two don't discuss, if one doesn't want to
Ah, but that is where imaginary friends and enemies come in. 
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot multiple personalities... those are a bit complicated to ignore too (see Tyler Durden in "Fight Club")
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.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly the point... so far, communication has mostly worked without a blocking function. This is because most members simply ignore messages that are not interesting or that constitute an attack.
What distinguishes CP from other - mostly stupid social forums - is that CP's members have common sense and are able to filter out unwanted messages on their own.
I experience you as a very communicative person and I am convinced that you can simply ignore unwanted posts.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: What distinguishes CP from other - mostly stupid social forums - is that CP's members have common sense and are able to filter out unwanted messages on their own.
Sorry man, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. My CP experience here has been just as many silly arguments. Granted, I may be the common denominator here. 
0x01AA wrote: I experience you as a very communicative person and I am convinced that you can simply ignore unwanted posts.
Thanks man. I did spend quite a few years in my 30s intentionally overcoming my fears of talking to people. And I know what you're saying makes intellectual sense, but I'm just surprised to see folks so vehemently against a blocking feature.
Programmers aren't any better, wiser, smarter, have less issues than non-programmers. Sometimes it's quite the opposite. We're just talking about a blocking feature to quietly handle situations that won't stop otherwise.
Thanks for the real chat though.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
).