|
We have a date range picker partially implemented. It's a lower priority than some of the other tasks we're currently working on but we will get to it. 
|
|
|
|
|
I think you you simply give a few options (radio buttons):
All
This year
This month
...and that would be quite enough. No need to make it so flexible that it's a paint to code.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
Adding the date selectors is the easy part. There is some update logic that has a bug and so we've sidelined it for a couple of days while we get out some more urgent stuff.
We'll do it, we're just prioritising as best we can.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
No rush, Chris. I "still" remember back in the "old days" when Code Project didn't even have a reputation graph.
|
|
|
|
|
I got an email in regards to this[^] message (the original post that became suggestions/todo was mine), but the message body referred to "Article "Timestamps"". I assume that was my original message subject, but:
0) It should say "quick answer", not "article".
1) Why isn't it using the current subject instead of the months old one?
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the report. We'll add those to the bug list.
|
|
|
|
|
Why Article version is automatically incremented though I have marked "Work in Progress - do not make public" chekbox before publising article?
Today I have posted one article
Exploring Caching : Using Caching Application Enterprise Library 4.1[^]
Check the few details of the article after making it public first time.
Version:4 (See All)
Posted: 10 Jan 2010
Updated:10 Jan 2010
Current Article version is 4 and Updated date is also “10 Jan 2010” where as the article is never been updated after Publish by Unchecked - "Work in Progress - do not make public".
I think it should be 1 during first publish (First time making public) . And any update further will increment the count. Any modify during Composing status should not be part of count.
Thanks !
Abhijit Jana | Codeproject MVP
Web Site : abhijitjana.net
Don't forget to click "Good Answer" on the post(s) that helped you.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Abhijit,
IMO it is difficult to have a version number that suits both CP and the author himself.
My articles typically include a History section where I describe logical versions, my latest article has versions 1.0, 2.0 and 2.1; if (and that is a big if) I managed to enter them correctly at the first try so I don't need editing unless I want to really change the content, CP will call that 1, 2 and 3; and later, when a CP editor kicks in, it becomes 4 (without a change in my History section).
I do understand CP wants version numbers to exist, and to go up all the time, so all versions can be identified; that is useful for the readers once published, and probably is also useful for the author(s) while composing. Remember, one can compose an article with more than one author.
I would however very much prefer a system where CP suggests a version number (a composite one as in major.minor), and allows it to be bumped up. In my proposal, it would start at 0.1, and go through 0.2, 0.3, ... while composing (yes, a problem arises after 0.9); then it would become 1.0 when published, later 1.1, 1.2, etc when edited again. If and when the author decides to bump the version, he should be able to do so; so editing 1.2 would suggest 1.3 but allow it to be bumped to 2.0; and a CP editor just editing it would keep the major number, unless that was zero (so 1.2 becomes 1.3, but 0.2 becomes 1.0). Having a strict algorithm allows authors to maintain an accurate history section.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a problem of semantics.
I'm going to change the word "Version" to "Revision" to reflect that it's the number of the article revision, not the code's version release number.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
or mere "silver" members who have a "personality" ?
thanks, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone in the community can vote or nominate anyone specifically for MVP status. AFAIK it's based upon the current voting system for both forum posts and Article submissions, much like the new reputation system, so everyone in the community has a say by casting their votes over the year.
I don't know if this is being overhauled at the moment, as Chris hasn't announced the 2010 MVPs yet, to reflect the recent changes in the site.
Dave
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
Why are you using VB6? Do you hate yourself? (Christian Graus)
|
|
|
|
|
| MVP status is based purely on voting results throughout the year, and hence is weighted by member level. The higher you are, the more your vote counts, the more the given member moves towards MVP status. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sent you an email, let me know if you get it.
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing yet...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
these are my observations regarding message removal on forums (and under an article in particular):
1. an author can delete his message; if there are no replies attached, the message disappears completely; if there are replies to the message, the message changes to "Message deleted" and the replies remain intact. This is all fine.
2. the community can remove a message by clicking "Vote to remove" sufficiently often. When the unknown threshold gets reached, the message changes to "Message Automatically Removed" but remains present, even when no replies are present. I would suggest to remove it when no replies are present.
3. Now the case that triggered my current message (I hope I get it right, as it is all gone by now):
3a. a univoter enters his message (without significant content), I reply ("thanks"), a third party (DaveyM69) replies to me ("don't worry"), I reply to him ("I don't; I do hope the univote gets removed"),
Dave replies ("when original gets removed, I will delete mine to clean up").
So the chain holds 5 cascading messages:
1=univoter
2=mine
3=Dave''s
4=mine
5=Dave''s.
NB: quotes doubled to avoid comment coloring
3b. After some days, the univote message gets voted down and becomes "Message Automatically Removed".
The reply chain is:
1=Message Automatically Removed
2=mine
3=Dave''s
4=mine
5=Dave''s.
3c. I delete my messages in the chain, they turn into "message removed", so the chain now is:
1=Message Automatically Removed
2=Message Removed
3=Dave''s
4=Message Removed
5=Dave''s.
3d. I send an e-mail to Dave, and he deletes both his messages, only the last one actually disappears,
and the chain is
1=Message Automatically Removed
2=Message Removed (mine)
3=Message Removed (Dave''s)
4=Message Removed (mine)
3e+3f+3g. I again delete my message #4, send another mail to Dave, he again deletes his message #3, and finally I again delete my message #2 (all in that order); the chain now is:
1=Message Automatically Removed
That was a lot of work, to be carried out in the right sequence, to almost get rid of a thread that consisted of empty messages since step 3d.
My suggestion is:
when a message gets deleted by its owner or removed by the community, and has no replies attached, delete and remove it (is OK except for removal by community), and also remove its parent, recursively, as long as that message does not have replies, AND (is already deleted by its author OR got removed automatically).
Doing so would significantly reduce the efforts required to clean out a thread that has lost its purpose.
modified on Saturday, January 9, 2010 6:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote:
2. the community can remove a message by clicking "Vote to remove" sufficiently often. When the unknown threshold gets reached,
It is (was) 13 in the lounge a few months ago when Chris was on vacation and we had the great troll mass nuking of 2009.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the specific message I was referring to ever reached 13, I rather expect it got only as high as 5 or 6, but then maybe vote weighing by silver/gold/platinum may have had it's say.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it's been tweaked since then the kill level appeared fully consistent at the time.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I am not able to access my id(3677777)
To post the message on this forum, i re-registered. Kindly help me on the issue
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what happened, accessing this[^] gives "this account is no longer active"
|
|
|
|
|
That's my profile which is deactivated.
How??? I don't know.
Chris, Please help me on the issue
|
|
|
|
|
It seems your account was banned due to there being some, shall we say, suspicious activity being carried out from that account.
I'll reactivate it, but please ensure you mainain control of your account at all time and abide by our Terms of Use[^].
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, i have mailed the details to webmaster@codeproject.com, please reactivate my id.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, i have no response regarding status of my id.
Please help
|
|
|
|
|
Currently the reputation graph doesn't extend lines to the end of the graph. For example, I've only publish one article, quite a while ago, so I've got a single dot on the reputation graph, and nothing more. To me it would make more sense to have a line at the level of that dot extended to the edge of the graph, as that reputation has remained constant over the rest of the time.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
