|
|
All fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Many people respond to comments and answers to their questions by posting another question as the answer rather than editing the original post or adding a comment. Is it possible to block this behavior such that the op can only edit the original question or add comments but cannot start another question within the same post?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
digital man wrote: . Is it possible to block this behavior
Well, OP post questions as the part of their comments! How do you expect this to be blocked keeping comments option open for them?
Further, at times the questions are related like a conversation so it should be allowed.
I think, asking totally different question by OP in a comment are in very few occasions such that they can be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
We have this is a TODO item (#599 if you're interested )
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We have this is a TODO item (#599 if you're interested Wink )
So finished by this afternoon?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
This fully qualifies as a "known issue".
.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
|
|
|
|
|
Since the 5 of July we've been experiencing very slow international bandwidth because of a damaged submarine cable[^].
However, since we are located at the opposite side of the earth from "actual" civilization, slow international internet is a common occurrence.
This is something you wouldn't even notice on a fast connection but...
When I open a forum page I can see the posts loading one by one, but if I dare click on any topic/post before the last one has loaded on the bottom of the page, the entire page refreshes in order to display the one I clicked on.
If I wait for the entire page to finish loading (lately about 5 minutes), everything is fine, I can browse all the posts with no interruption.
For example, if i open the Lounge and I want to read the contents of the top-most post, I cant read it until the bottom-most post has been loaded (5 minutes later). If I try by clicking on it the entire page goes blank to refresh and I have to wait some more as everything starts loading again from scratch.
The easiest work-around, is simply to wait for the entire page to load, but I often forget, not seeing off the bottom of my screen that the page is still loading... it's so frustrating clicking on a post and realizing that I clicked too soon and that the whole page will now disappear and restart it's agonizingly slow refresh.
I'm by no means complaining, but if you have any possible solution I'd greatly appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd try a couple different browsers, I expect them to react differently under slow communication conditions.
And for message forums, I'd choose the lowest number of messages per page, which would be 10.
|
|
|
|
|
At least the response is still quick!
I'm using Chrome, but I've tried FireFox, which at least gives me 2-3 seconds to view the post's contents before sweeping it away in a blank abyss to do the refresh.
Don't get me started on IE8.
|
|
|
|
|
MatthysDT wrote: 2-3 seconds to view the post's contents
[PRINT SCREEN]!
|
|
|
|
|
As a work around try changing your layout to Expand Posts and Replies. YOu'll have to do more scrolling but all posts will be open so you will be able to read them as they download.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
MatthysDT wrote: but if I dare click on any topic/post before the last one has loaded on the bottom of the page, the entire page refreshes in order to display the one I clicked on.
I noticed this behavior sometimes even in a fast connection. If we expand a forum message before the page getting loaded, whole page will refresh again. I don't think that problem is related to connection speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Arun Jacob wrote: I don't think that problem is related to connection speed.
It isn't. There were a couple of threads a few weeks ago on this very topic, starting about here[^]
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not, but having to wait 5 seconds to begin reading messages is a minor annoyance; having to wait 5 minutes is a show stopper.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I added a fix last week - how is it now for you?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just gotten an e-mail, telling me that an alternate has been posted to my tip/trick.
I was able to read the content of the alternate in the e-mail, but when I open the tip/trick, the alternate doesn't appear.
I checked the message at the top of this forum, and under 'Recent changes' it says
16-Jun-10 Regular users can't see tip/trick alternate just posted
When it's under 'Recent changes', it means that it should have been fixed, right?
I've tried Ctrl+F5 a few times, but it's still not showing up.
Edit: It's visible now, but isn't this still a bug?
modified on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
The alternate was "pending", i.e. awaiting moderation. I made it publicly available, so it should be visible to all now.
IMO it is silly you're signaled but not allowed to see it; of course, you should be allowed to participate in the moderation process of an alternate to your own T&T.
|
|
|
|
|
I was actually considering if this was because of some kind of "approval" process, but as you said, the poster of the tip should be able to moderate his/her own tip/tricks.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, this is something we overlooked. You should be able to moderate alternates of your own tip/trick. I've created a high priority task for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Thiru.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. You either see three answers (a real one, and two deleted but still readable) or you see just one; it depends on you being signed on with sufficient karma or not. And the count reflects the number of answers you can actually see.
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, no. The count, currently, reflects the total number of answers. An over-zealous correction caused an over-correction. It will be fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|