|
|
Where did you poach that from? You should take a break fast!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
As long as it is the mother of haute-cuisine sauces
and we can watch movies with Dirk Benedict 
modified 22-Feb-21 15:06pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that the egg or the bacon consider themselves blessed...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Hollandaise?
Still would prefer that over any "full" English breakfast.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I really get annoyed by drive-by 1-voters...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree.
However, in the past when I've tried to explain my one-vote (nothing of yours I hasten to add!) I've sometimes been hit by "revenge down voting" - which is frankly quite funny
|
|
|
|
|
I'll never get used to it. I don't think the most recent instance is a revenge thing, because I haven't been especially harsh to anyone recently (at least, not intentionally). I don't know if down-voting is weighted like up-voting is, but it was a 5-point hit.
I'd like to think that if it was from an established user, they'd at least show some respect and let me know where I went wrong.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think the ratings should go away in favor of a praise/recommend button, and rating based article ranking if any, be based around those.
That way you effectively remove downvotes, which if you think about it don't contribute to the community nor rarely foster improvement - and never when they aren't accompanied by comments.
Comments are where improvements get suggested effectively. 1 star votes are just a way to crap all over other people.
If I think your article needs improvement, I'll write a comment. I usually vote 5 stars if I vote. I'm leery about giving 4s because I don't like dinging a perfect score, but if it's already not perfect, I'll consider a 4 vote in lieu of a 5, if i think there's room for improvement.
But like I said, i think the ratings system is not ideal in the first place, and should be replaced.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I suggested this several years ago. I think an "is useful" and/or "is recommended" flag(s), possibly factored by the number of views/bookmarks/downloads could be used to generate a 1-5 "score". Granted, the factoring of the the views/bookmarks/downloads could be gamed by those truly desperate for reputation points, but I think that's a very minor concern, especially if the factoring has a slightly less than significant impact on the score.
As significant as articles and Q/A are with respect to the site's purpose, something needs to be done to convince that continuing participation in the system is a "good thing" (TM).
In light of the lack of accountability for down-voting, it might be a viable idea to show who voted and what they voted.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree. I'm roping @chris-maunder in here just so he can see this, because I think he deserves to know.
I've mostly not been contributing lately due to work, but the other not-insignificant thing that has happened is I think I picked up my downvote troll again, or a new one (i'm still not sure - i need to post 3 articles or so in quick succession once I get time to write them and see what happens)
But getting downvoted puts me off, because I put a ton of effort into my articles, and then all it does is sink my overall article rating which right now is really good.
And I wouldn't even care, but for the fact that I *have* an article rating in the first place.
My point is, I'd be more likely to contribute if we *didn't* have that feature, especially if I'm writing something i think is vital but niche, so won't be very popular, but will be a godsend if you need it - at least that's my goal with a lot of my content. But if it's getting downvoted and perhaps even deranked by drive by critics who won't even tell me why, it leaves me with nothing but a net loss for my time and effort, and perhaps - worst case - (though i don't know if it impacts SEO) makes it less likely for someone to find the content if they need it later. What's the point?
Like I said, I'm with you, JSOP. A "recommend" button or something like that in lieu of the star rankings seems better for the community.
Otherwise, if one goes with 5 star rankings on their site, i personally think they need to justify to their project the use of "downvotes." for the good of the project - what they add to the community, to the site, and to its content. Just my $0.02
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Chris was the one that rejected my earlier recommendation, I don't remember the reasons he gave. I suspect he'll maintain his rejection of the idea.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this way he can reject, taking away more feedback from his contributors. It's his site. He can do what he wants. But I feel like I'd be doing him a disservice if nothing else by dishing on CP without including him in the convo. It can only help. CP is great, and Chris and his team are a big part of why. They deserve to know when their contributors feel things could be improved, and it's in that spirit that I roped him in, regardless of what he does with the information. It's his right to know, and serves everyone better when he's kept in the loop on things like this, IMO.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I had an alternative solution: enabling down voting only to members with sufficient reputation points or longevity. This can mitigate the problem without having to cull any features.
If one needs to build an identity for a while in order to do the drive-bys then it makes it something more difficult to do as, should the surreptitious identity be disabled then a lot of time and effort in creating it is lost. As things stand, I could create an identity and start screwing around in just a few minutes.
Rep points - assuming they're not abused - are a way to keep track of oneself. Are the answers posted any good (assuming they affirmatively accept one)? Or, at least, does the community find the solution to a Q&A good? Even lounge posts can benefit. In this way, I'm comparatively stingy with giving points (or down-voting). Even though their case value is rather low, I don't want to cheapen them or my imaginary perspective on their worth.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
That seems reasonable too. The only downside i can see is it doesn't solve the problem of two regulars getting into a war over content, but i don't know if that's really a problem.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
They don't want to prevent someone from 100% participation in the site (at least I think that's the reason they gave).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I get the concept of being welcoming. Like a lot of things, however, sometimes someone(s) have this need to ruin it. In this context, "someone" might really be no-one. Happily, not my decision.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You have to sign in to download though, so I think one of the major participation points is lacking without an account.
I mean, I get that on some forums you need an account to download files but literally this site is for sharing code. If you can't share code without an account then I'd say that's a pretty major absence of participation ability, but then that's me clearly not understanding the metric for "participation" here.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure, but I think you need an account to participate in the forums, download code, ask a question, or vote. Again, I'm not sure.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You're probably right. Maybe they mean by participation - participation by account holders? i guess i can see that now. i'm trying to think of anything other than beta features and approving their own content the low rep users can't do and I'm coming up empty.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: enabling down voting only to members with sufficient reputation points or longevity
Two things here
- People who have just signed up have the same ability to judge an article as someone who has been around a while. I've never liked the messaging that goes with "you can't call out bad code unless you've been in the club a long time".
- Many, many, many of the drive-by downvotes are actually done by members who have been around a while. Sad but true.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thus you have the dialectic of contradiction to handle:
You don't want to give this place a "squatter's rights" attitude and you express that admirably in the idea that a new member could judge as well as an old timer.
On the other hand, you don't want the ability to create an account quickly just to enable being an anonymous a**hole totally easy.
For a member "with a history, longevity, &etc", you at least know who they are and can take whatever measures you deem appropriate.
But the contradiction exists: surreptitious creation of accounts for minor harassment vs being a welcoming place. How does the drive-by user differ morally from a spammer? One spammer apparently hit one of my posts, today, and it was purged before I could get there to mark it as spam.
Your choice of colors is a difficult gradient that will just have to pick where to succeed and where to fail. Almost a living thing.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You've nailed it.
The deciding factor, though, is the percentage of drive-bys that are by established members.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
You have a valid point. I have seen a few articles here where the author pontificates ad nauseum against things that are standard industry practices and then they wonder why there are so many down votes. I find it rather amusing. I was one of those down votes and I don't feel like wasting my time arguing. The industry has already done that for me with its widespread adoption of those "bad" practices. If they were really so bad they would be exceptions instead of rules.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, but I think you should comment rather than vote if you're going to bother. Your point you just made to me might have had an impact in the comment section. All your downvote did, IMO is say "stick it, guy!" and if he's anything like me, he'd wonder what the hell he did?
For all I know my driveby downvotes were deserved, because my code crashed or something. Hell, I had one project i published here recently fail on *me* when I tried to run it in my commercial code in its first foray into "the wild" - and i got a one vote on that. I wonder if it failed for them too? I would have loved to know, because clearly my testing wasn't sufficient.
But see, that comment you gave me would have served the community, and the author, again in my opinion.
Just like the comment that my code didn't work not only would have made me fix it, but saved me time on the backend when i tried to use it in my own code.
If we're here to help each other and support each others endeavors I say we do it. You know?
A lot of times I just don't feel like it, so I get that. None of us are obligated. But then why vote? I don't mean that rhetorically. If there's an answer - like - what purpose does it serve, I'd listen. I'm open.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
