|
That probably would be useful. I'll add it to the list.
|
|
|
|
|
Just going through our TODO list and wanted to le4t you know the search page now has the "My Stuff" option for searching through posts.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody looked at my profile and discovered that I have morphed into a group with no members. I assure you that my member is fine and in working order. Soap Box 1 is a group. Do I have to be a group cause I started it?
|
|
|
|
|
No.
I have made your member anti-social.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I have made your member anti-social.
But not my biography. It's still plagiarizing Soapbox 1.0
|
|
|
|
|
You're going to need to log out and lag back in again for your forum settings to change.
As to your bio, you're going to have to change that back yourself. I'm guessing you were editing the SoapBox group settings but tehy were saved onto your account. A quick, wild guess could be that there are session issues: your go into "Edit Soapbox" mode, edit, keep editing, pause (for 20 mins), session expires, you hit "submit", you get auto-logged in as YOU but the info you post back is for the SoapBox.
Hmm.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: A quick, wild guess could be that there are session issues: your go into "Edit Soapbox" mode, edit, keep editing, pause (for 20 mins), session expires, you hit "submit", you get auto-logged in as YOU but the info you post back is for the SoapBox
It's possible. Would that explain why I became a social group as well? The two seem to have happened within the same time period.
|
|
|
|
|
All settings would have been transferred to you. I'll enter a bug cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Off-topic Oakman, but you are nearing 20K
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Off-topic Oakman, but you are nearing 20K
Off hand, I'll bet that most folks who shoot their mouth off a lot work at home, like I do (or don't work, like CSS )
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the linked Q in the post below I realised there is no way to 'report' a question, only answers.
Is this by design?
|
|
|
|
|
There's a 'Report' link under the Tools section which allows you to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow I missed that - thanks
|
|
|
|
|
me too!
It should be next to the Improve Question button to keep the design consistent with the layout for the answers, e.g. report next to the improve.
Think the tools are just a way out to the right, they would maybe sit better in a horizontal line, across the top of the box that contains the Posted, Edited and revision information.
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point. I'll bring it up with the team!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Posts are shown with a vote rating to 2 decimal places; but the ajax update after you vote only shows to one. 3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed next update. Thanks Dan. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
After seeing the below question, it's quite confusing about who marks the answer as accepted and what is a criteria for it. Can someone clarify it?
I just found this Question[^]. 4 Answers were accepted and 3 from the same user!
|
|
|
|
|
The author of the question is supposed to (and the only one that has rights to) mark an answer as accepted. I thought this was simple and intuitive but it looks like it's actually causing some confusion. We're going to change this, in the not to distant future, such that answers with an average rating over 4.5 are marked as accepted automatically. Hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
|
if the author of the question doesn't do anything, then you can't rightfully mark an answer as "accepted". All you can do automatically is mark it "probably good enough".
And what will happen to the rep FAQ which currently says "A member receives points for having their answer marked accepted by the author of a question."???
|
|
|
|
|
Yep we'll adjust the wording so it doesn't read 'Accepted Answer' because, like you said, we can't rightfully mark it accepted on the authors behalf.
Luc Pattyn wrote: And what will happen to the rep FAQ which currently says "A member receives points for having their answer marked accepted by the author of a question."
That reputation event will be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, let's just ban the word "accepted", it has been confusing from day 1.
|
|
|
|
|
I have doubts with this one too... i had seen lots of right answer ... even 'Accepted as answer' marked vote 1! Not fair! is it?
Thus if we have anything like automatic marking for posts above 4.5 or so, it would ignore quite few posts that should be considered!
|
|
|
|