|
If you keep an eye on the browser url box when you click the Permalink button, you will see that the message number is appended to the url. You can then copy&paste this url. (I don't know of any "official" documentation, I just noticed this is the way it works.)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Hans. I definitely did not see that.
|
|
|
|
|
For some reason, I thought you were going to make the Forum list expandable like the Chapter list on the home page - i.e., click on a Forum list header to see all the forums under that header. If you did that, you would have plenty of room to include both the Forum list and the Chapter list - now, the Chapter list only is shown on the home page.
|
|
|
|
|
In thinking it over I started worrying about how unweildy it was getting. A couple of hundred sections and a few dozen forums make for a lot of HTML being sent.
The long term plan is to simply everything and allow members to focus on the specific type of content they are most interested in, while making it easy to get between different areas of content. On top of this, the way we present the forums is going to change significantly as well so this setup is more of a temporary measure.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad to hear you have a plan! 
However, if it's going to take a while for all this to happen, what this means is that the Chapters will only be accessible from the home page, which throws the whole site into a kind of modal behavior.
Maybe you could include a Chapters entry on the green menu bar? It could do what the Articles | Topic List selection is supposed to do, but which doesn't do anything right now.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a test.
See "Back button causes error message" at:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=1645&msg=1952924&bmkres=success[^]
I used this thread to test that; the forums are stiil working the way I described there; that is, when I created this thread, then used the back key (Ctrl-back) then I got the warning saying that I will lose my work.
If anyone else gets the same, then you can reply to the other thread but my purpose here was to test it.
[Moved to Bugs and Suggestions]
modified on Sunday, January 25, 2009 1:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I moved your post into the Bugs and Suggestions forum.
I can't replicate what you are describing.
When I create a new message/thread by going to the edit page and hitting 'Submit' I end up in the forum viewing my latest post. Hitting Ctrl-back does nothing for me (IE7) but if you hit the back button in your browser and end up at the edit page, then again hit back (or try and quit) then yes, you'll see the popup warning because of the way you have navigated to the page.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, there is your reply; I did not see it here a minute ago.
Yes, I think you described it adequately; I am sorry if I did not. Note that what I was suggesting is that the forum software detect that the back key was used. It might seem to you to be unusual to use the back key in that manner but it is normal for me. It is slightly irritating for me that so many people think that going back in that manner is strange and therefore don't try to support it.
|
|
|
|
|
I see this got moved.
Sorry, I intended to reply to the previous thread.
This problem still exists for me. I have an entirely new system yet I still get the warning when it does not apply. It is a minor problem except as I said in the previous thread, it is a bit confusing; I often am concerned that I might lose something even when I won't.
|
|
|
|
|
On an article with a lot of votes, it's almost impossible to position your mouse so that you can see how many votes were cast when there are very low vote counts of a given score value. For instance, if an article has 65 votes, and only one or two are '1's, you will almost not be able to see the actual number of '1' votes. I think it might help if we could get the vote counts by hovering over the vote values under the bars.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
You're right of course.
Could all of us help out by adding some low votes? 
|
|
|
|
|
If you really want I can oblige...
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I usually don't vote 1, but for John... 
|
|
|
|
|
I was using it as an example. Sheesh!
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
The Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced level text is not being displayed on the article page. Is that intentional?
|
|
|
|
|
It was removed when we went from a single level to multiple levels being allowed on an article.
And we forgot to put it back. 
Todo item 1394
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How can one article be categorized at multiple levels? Even if it starts at a beginner level, and then gets into advanced stuff, I think it should be categorized at beginner level.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: it should be categorized at beginner level.
or "fast forward" ?
|
|
|
|
|
My thinking was that the article level should be set to the lowest entry level contained in the article. So, if an article covers beginner thru intermediate levels, the level for that article should be Beginner.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: the article level should be set to the lowest entry level
I'm not sure; when I am familiar with the subject and notice a "beginners" level, I might not read it and miss out on something. I probably would read it (or bookmark it?) if the level were anything else though.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point. I wonder if people would understand if there was just a list of levels? Maybe if it said something like "Recommended for: Beginner - Intermediate"?
|
|
|
|
|
or a from-to description: from beginner to intermediate; from beginner to advanced, ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious what you expect Chris or the team to do. Unfortunately jerks will be jerks - and they are certainly entitled to their opinion, and there is nothing that the CP team can do about that - they certainly can't stop the person for posting their opinion. At least this person provided a reason and didn't just type . in the box.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes sir, you are right. But in the morning when I saw the message was very disappointed , because I have put a lot of effort for this article. but after 7 Hrs of Office work...... its  .
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: At least this person provided a reason and didn't just type . in the box.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
.
