|
|
They also had one that got through - I've deleted it.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, missed that one got through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at this example http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/ListVersions.aspx?aid=1017398[^]
Between revisions 12 to 31 there are no changes in the article at all. So I believe the purpose is solely to keep the article on the front page.
That together with the begging for votes in the comments section is giving a bit of a bad taste.
Oh, please don't simply report, I want a discussion on where it goes from silly behaviour to actual abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
The vote requests aren't to my taste - but I find it tacky in QA as well - but that's not abuse.
The edits are edging there, but I don't think that counts as actual abuse either, it's just "gaming the system" without any real reward.
Perhaps a quiet word is the best policy? It's not a bad article, after all! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Perhaps a quiet word is the best policy
Probably, but that's rather a task for @sean-ewington or @chris-maunder than me.
OriginalGriff wrote: It's not a bad article, after all
That's why I asked people to not simply report.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the tags on the article is "CEO". That explains a few things.
|
|
|
|
|
We made a change for this precise scenario. Articles only get marked as updated now if you manually check a box. It is not checked by default, I don't think.
The editors check every article update before they are put live. If nothing is updated, the article is not marked as updated.
If someone keeps feeding updates to the queue, I have a chat with them. Nick's not one of those guys -- he's all right.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Ewington wrote: The editors check every article update before they are put live. If nothing is updated, the article is not marked as updated
I thought Platinum authors could publish themselves.
Sean Ewington wrote: If someone keeps feeding updates to the queue, I have a chat with them.
There's a version 33 out now, completely identical to version 32 that Chris edited today.
Sean Ewington wrote: Nick's not one of those guys -- he's all right
|
|
|
|
|
Platinum authors can publish themselves, but I keep an eye on those guys too.
Some people tweak their article forever. It's just how they do. But Nick's articles have not been on my radar and (as far as I can see) have not been in a weekly newsletter or daily build since July.
I can keep an extra eye on them if it helps you sleep better at night. 
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that was the online equivalent of a lollipop and a pat on the back.
|
|
|
|
|
Could it be that minor changes don't trigger the article to be included in the daily/weekly mails but they lift the article into the front page.
|
|
|
|
|
One week, fifteen new versions, one actual change.
You got to hand me another lollipop.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect whatever update was made that it is localized specifically to the front page and the list of Latest Articles, but NOT in any newsletters or feeds. We can look at that.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there a system that prevents people from gaining additional reputation points when the changes to the article are only minor? Might make sense if in these cases the date isn't updated as well so it doesn't show up as one of the latest articles anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know you even got rep points for editing an existing article of yours! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
See Reputation FAQ[^] Editor:
Editing an article gives 5 reputation points if you change at least 10% of the article. Heard about that when someone complained in sugs & bugs that they didn't get those points after some major edits 
So there already is a system in place which decides if the articles has changed enough to warrant some additional reputation points, why not use it to decide if the changes are worth displaying the article as newly updated.
|
|
|
|
|
I would think the whole point is to keep the article visible on the homepage so that more people read and vote for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I understood that. The reputation for editing are pretty minor anyway. But there's a system in place that divides minor and major edits already (minor: no additional reputation, major: a few additional reputation). So maybe the same thing (or something alike) to mark the article as newly updated if there are some major changes or keeping minor updates somewhat hidden by not pushing it to the top of the latest articles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All gone!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
