|
Exactly.
The original intent was to prevent members from deleting good content. I figured that if there's a non-minor edit than it may be content worth keeping around. Turns out that that's not the case. And even if you don't own all the edits. Anyway we do have the voting rule in place. If a post has a score of 3 or higher it can't be deleted. That should suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, I still (last time I checked) seems to be that even minor edits will prevent the answer from being deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep sorry, I wasn't clear that these are things we are considering. But as of early this morning the non-minor edit rule is gone.
|
|
|
|
|
When replying to a message at the bottom of this question, "Do not interpret HTML tags (good for code snippets)" was checked (I noticed and unchecked it before posting). This is strange because I never ever check that. Also, the question itself seems to be suffering from its HTML tags having been HTML encoded, so maybe the same thing happened to the original question poster.
|
|
|
|
|
We'll take a closer look at this. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Found the issue. Will have the fix uploaded tomorrow. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Try viewing my reputation graph in IE8. It looks messed up (really small and ugly). I checked a few other profiles, which are looking normal in the same browser. Let me know if you can't reproduce it and I'll email a screen-shot.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
I had the same problem earlier.
Chris suggested using Ctrl + F5 but that did not work (for me). After a few days the graph became fine automatically.
I belive this is an issue with IE8 - the cache is not getting cleared completely.
modified on Sunday, January 24, 2010 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the cache. I tried clearing out the entire cache, I tried viewing the same thing in "In Private" mode, etc.,
It's ugly, as long as the browser is IE8.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
I may have found something.
Try Internet Options -> Reset. I believe that is what had fixed things for me earlier.
You may also want to go through this site.
modified on Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Still no cake.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try using Compatibility view? For me, just a minute ago IE-8 showed me a message saying that it's auto switching to compatibility mode because there were problems with the site. Hasn't happened before, and I am sure if I refresh it'll be back to normal view - but still worth a try for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you! It does work right with compatibility view. So, does this prove that IE8 is the one that has this problem? And I'm confused because it happens only when I view my profile (and has been the case with other people viewing their own profile too).
Something somewhere needs a fix.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
It's a caching issue your end, I'm afraid. It's looking fine from here.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How many Tips/Tricks corresponds to one article? A lot of people claim they don't post articles because they don't have time, and Tips/Tricks addresses the time issue. However, is a single tip/trick equal to a single article?
Also, isn't the reputation requirement a little low for climbing the membership ladder?
With the advent of the new reputation and tips/tricks scoring, shouldn't membership tenure be dropped as a basis for increasing membership level?
Just thinking out loud here...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly ----- "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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: How many Tips/Tricks corresponds to one article
As per the new reputation system, a new Tip / Trick posted is worth 10 points and a new article posted is 100 points.
So 10 Tips / Tricks = 1 Article.
Interestingly, if I post a tip / trick and an article and someone 'up-votes' both, I get 5 points either way.
|
|
|
|
|
Abhinav S wrote: So 10 Tips / Tricks = 1 Article.
Yeah, I got that (and I think posting an article is worth more than 100 points, but I digress). However, is that logic carried over into the determination of membership level?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly ----- "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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: However, is that logic carried over into the determination of membership level?
The FAQ does not mention anything about this. Hopefully, the CP team can answer this question.
Waiting for their response....
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it has been changed, but an article upvote gets you 10 points and a tip/trick upvote gets you 5.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: gets you 10 points and a tip/trick upvote gets you 5
Ok - that sounds more appropriate - thanks for this informtion.
Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Membership level, as in the simple 1 size fits all broze/silver/gold is in limbo, awaiting an update. We're going to change it so you no longer have a single level, but multiple gold/silver etc based on the different things you do. You could be a gold author, but only a bronze 'expert', or you could be a platinum participant.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I care for that arrangement. As it will severely tweak the concept of member status.
Personally, I'm not fond of editing other people's stuff, nor of having other people edit mine.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly ----- "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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: nor of having other people edit mine.
Yeah, I second that. I'd prefer it if others did not edit my articles, unless it's a really minor formatting fix or a typo correction. Maybe gold and platinum authors should have an edit-lock feature where we can prevent others from editing our articles (except for CP staff/editors).
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: unless it's a really minor formatting fix or a typo correction
But how could we do this if we didn't allow others to edit your entries? This is one of the biggest advantages to the wiki-approach we've been adopting. But there's no good way to open up your entries only for minor fixes.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Maybe gold and platinum authors should have an edit-lock feature where we can prevent others from editing our articles
We've given this some thought but I'm personally not fond of it. However we did implement it for Tips/Tricks. The author is able to choose what type of members are able to edit their tip/trick. Also, articles still have the same edit rules they've always had. I.e., other members can't edit your article. Questions and answers, however are far more open.
Consider the following scenario if we were to implement this for Quick Answers:
A gold member posts a question/answer and locks it. A few months pass by after which the author pays no attention to it. There are some issues with the post that other members are dying to correct. Sure, we can have it so that an email is sent to the author but in some cases the author simply won't care (or doesn't have the time) to attend to their post. By allowing other (privileged) members to simply go in and edit the author doesn't have to worry about their entry if they don't want to. But if they do still have a lot of interest in maintaining there article they can simply go in and see any changes (which of course they'll be notified of through email) and choose whether to leave it as is or roll back the changes.
|
|
|
|
|
You could put a reset time on edit locks; ie the author periodically has to renew them indicating that they still have the time/interest to maintain the article and letting them lapse otherwise.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|