|
Yes, fair point and I'm not suggesting that there is no valid content in Q/As, just a lot less than there used to be.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
On the bright side there was an example of what I think is a good question[^] on the C# forum yesterday.
The chap/chapess made it clear that they were a beginner and had a stab at the solution which showed that they were putting effort in.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: I hope this doesn't reflect where the industry is going as a whole.
I'm rather afraid it does. One of the worst things I see on a regular basis is questions that reflect either a) the questioner has received some very bad teaching, or b) they really have no (or very poor) understanding of how a computer works.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately the gimme/homework, and don'-know-nuttin-and-didn-bother-to-even-search-cp questions are equally matched by a flood-tide of half-witted answers, often composed by our cadre of google-it-and-post-first-link-found repbloaters.
Still, I find satisfaction in trying to be an "educator," and in the occasional sense I have contributed in a small way to someone else's technical progress.
But, the entire reputation system as-is, I am sorry to say, is a meaningless disgrace. Anyone can rack up a couple of hundred-points per week on QA just posting "solutions" that tell people they are off-track, or that "we don't do homework" 
As Mr. Natural said: " 'Twas ever Thus" ... always the capricious circus of the world, and, in its insanity, the only life-preserver one really has is one's own enduring values.
bill
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: But, the entire reputation system as-is, I am sorry to say, is a meaningless disgrace.
I agree with this - I think we'd be better off without it.
Why does everything which is ever said or done have to be offered up for everyone else to judge? I like the idea that people can 'agree' and to a lesser extent 'disagree' on a particular point, but aggregating every single thing up over someone's lifetime to give them a measure of worthiness according to CodeProject irritates me.
You find yourself getting sucked in to it. In real life I quite like playing devils advocate and being argumentative (in a friendly way) so thank God this reputation system doesn't exist in real life. I'd be having a breakdown.
AND it would be nice, just for once, to post something without any consideration about point scoring and whether it would prove popular or not. To focus on the point, not the popularity. Right, I'm starting to rant. Message ends.. *plink*
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Robb,
As I just wrote to Richard Deeming, I feel abolishing the rep system is a kind of draconian "final solution" that could be used only if there's just no chance-in-hell for a solution in which reputation has meaning, and real value.
I believe Chris and Company have been thinking about the QA situation for some time now, and it will change.
Meanwhile, as in so many other arenas of life, we do make our own reality.
yours, Bill
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: a flood-tide of half-witted answers, often composed by our cadre of google-it-and-post-first-link-found repbloaters.
If the person asking the question has put some effort in, and the Google link doesn't answer their question, then it's not an acceptable answer.
If, however, the link does answer their question, or they've not put any effort into the question, then it's a perfectly reasonable response. Why should we spend time crafting the perfect answer if the questioner can't be bothered to do any research themselves?
When you get a "question" along the lines of "C# code to do X", where typing the entire question into Google would most likely return a suitable answer, then a link to http://lmgtfy.com/[^] is the most appropriate response. Otherwise, the forum becomes little more than a free mechanical Turk[^] for Google.
Helping others is a great feeling, but it only works if they want to be helped. Far too many people seem to want others to just do the work for them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard,
Nothing I said was intended to convey the idea that an answer to a QA question in the form of a link, or two, is, ipso facto, a "bad" answer !
I just ignore questions I think are posted in haste by folks who "just want code." But, if I think a person is really trying, and I have the idea they are struggling with English, I'll try to really help them articulate their question by asking for clarification in the form of a comment on their post.
What bothers me is seeing people who post lots of answers with links which are not really relevant to the OP's question. And, also, it is disturbing to take the time to ask reasonable questions in comments on the post seeking clarification, and then see a series of rapid answers many of which are way off-base because, as yet, the OP has not really clearly stated what they are concerned with.
I have proposed (more than once) on the CP "Suggs and Buggs Forum" that CP could do specific things to improve QA, including allowing people to "freeze" questions until the OP answer carefully posed questions by others.
Most disturbing to me is the phenomenon of seeing some of the most senior, most productive, most articulate, CP members who have commented publicly that they no longer answer questions on QA because of certain people's off-putting behavior and/or the general melee of the scene: that's a real loss for the community.
But, I am confident Chris and Co. are thinking hard about this situation now; Chris has commented he may merge what are now the QA forums and the language discussion forums.
Meanwhile, the circus goes on, and within it we make our own reality.
I find myself agreeing with Rob about a no-rep solution, but feel it's a "last resort" measure that should be used only when it's absolutely impossible to have a rep system that has real value.
yours, Bill
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.
On every forum in which I participate, across every language, there's a noticeable slide to "just do it for me" Q&A, a near complete lack of not only analytical thinking, but any INTEREST in analytical thinking.
I've noticed a very strong cultural correlation which I won't offer here.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been against it since it first appeared. Utterly ridiculous concept.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never liked the Q&A format and from some of the other comments here I realised when I do wander in there I never read the detail of an answered question whereas in the forums I will almost always read through the answers to see if there was something I can use/learn or if I can add something or even be amused by.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should bring this up.
I've relatively recently become a bit addicted to answering the Q/A's. Your grid-comment is certainly on target and it was good to know that someone else noticed oh-so-many of them - I was beginning to feel well out of the mainstream.
The way I usually try to answer, however, rarely gives an answer (aside from spotting a bug). Often I'll try to guide them in a different manner of laying out their logic - but let them do the work. Oddly, it's the same way I handled (the rare) homework questions for my kids: I'll teach you what you need to do.
Perhaps if we treat the do-it-for-me group as we would trolls they'll just fade away.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately that's not exclusive of Code Project's Q/A, I see pretty much the same behavior on StackOverflow, where 9 out of 10 questions (specially HTML/CSS/JavaScript ones) can be trivially answered by a quick search on Google, the site or even firing the Debug Tools on question.
As a side note, I believe that a hard forum or Q and A format doesn't fit all questions, a mix of the two could be better (like on social.msdn.com).
|
|
|
|
|
I have only used it one time; and it was a messup. I didn't know it was a one way set up to process the results; oh, don't ever answer your own question; bad bery bery bad 
I think it's about the points the big boys get tally's and seeing their names on the page.
I usually do the unlimited searches with all different engines. This is how I did my homework and is how I do my job. Rarely I have had to ask anyone on the internet how to do anything; there is already a similar solution out there somewhere that one can learn from and develop it to work in their favor.
I also would like to see just an open forum where discussions are 'technical' and debates can happen, without insults or the ' I told ya so' attitudes. But, this is the internet where everyone can be an idiot and a genius at the same time. 
oh, oh, witty witty ditty || something stupid
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: What happened to the "
You mean that sometime in the past your perception was that the questions were different?
There could be many reasons for that. One of course is the fact that it is very likely that you have changed - not the questions. The questions that seem "easy" to you now are only easy because you now have the knowledge. So they seem easy where in the past they didn't. This of course might not be the complete explanation but it certainly a possibility.
Another reason would be that the culture of computer communications has changed and is changing. It wasn't that long ago that one didn't ask questions on a forum unless one already had some degree of technical knowledge. Contrast that with now where the vast majority of people do not have that knowledge but when they want to acquire that knowledge they don't start with a book or class but rather go directly to online sources.
Another reason is that there are many more broad areas where one might need only a small bit of knowledge at at in frequent basis where in the past there were very few areas. So although one might have a deep knowledge in several areas there are at least a magnitude of other areas where one might need to solve problems and yet not have time to learn the topic deeply.
|
|
|
|
|
I normally never look at my phone when it bleats while I'm on the pea sea as it's always just e-mails which I get here anyway.
But when it bleeped at 13:00 I looked at it for some reason - Reminder: Phone Interview
After several elephants and a choice sunshine, I phoned in [one of the conference call thangs] and the call went reasonably well. That means I'd confused tomorrow with today so I can go t'pub tomorrow! ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of interest did the Nagy in your Nom-Decode come Imre Nagy?
|
|
|
|
|
No, it was from my nickname "Big W...". Funnily enough, we can see his house from our terrace in Budapest; he lived down the hill from where we are.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy, W...., I think I know too much Hungarian already (my limit as far foreign languages goes generally Hello, Goodbye, Please, Thank you and Another Beer )
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to see you are taking your career seriously! Jobs/interviews/working is optional and probably best avoided.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I really do need to work more, it's getting rather monotonous being home so much.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: I really do need to work more
What? You tired of being a kepted man? 
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: That means I'd confused tomorrow with today so I can go t'pub tomorrow!
You know, these updates make me really glad I get to trudge into Scumberland every day to go to work.
We need a bitter emoticon, and by bitter I mean like this[^] not this[^]
|
|
|
|
|
![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Damn you!!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
