|
I think that a person should only be allowed to vote on articles if :
0) He/she has submitted at least one article themselves
1) At least one article they've submitted is in the same category (i.e., "C++/MFC", or "ASP.NET")
2) His/her average article rating is at least as high as yours (and with a reasonable number of votes on their article(s) to prevent people from doing a drive-by article long enough to vote on someone else's).
3) Platinum members can always vote.
4) Members who've been active for a reasonable amount of time
5) If someone votes a 1, they must provide a valid reason.
Article authors should also have the opportunity to offer rebuttal to 1 votes.
Article voters should be allowed to change their votes but only to increase it. This will allow article authors to amend their articles to be better, and everyone at CP wins.
A platinum member can delete 1 votes on anyone's article that are not valid.
If someone continues to make invalid votes, he should be banned from the voting process on the entire site.
A 1 vote cast by a platinum member cannot be deleted.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John, I agree with the sentiment, but I think the extent that you are proposing would be just too onerous. I think the only limitation on who can vote should be your #4, been a member for a while. But I have no idea on what that limit should be.
The other idea I really like is being able to change your vote as an article is improved.
One thing I would like to see is a system similar to MSDN where one can see how many votes of each ranking the article got, that would be more informative than just the weighted average.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a perfect (and recent) example of article abuse. Someone created an account here, and used it to post a single message and cast a single 1 vote - in my artcle.
I recognize that Chris doesn't want to inhibit the use of the site by new members, but at the same same, he has a responsibility to protect the users that have been contributing in a positive manner to CodeProject from the article abuse. Afterall, the articles/free source code are the primary draw to the site. If contributing users are continually abused, they'll stop posting articles.
Maybe it's too easy to become a gold and/or silver member... Maybe on top of the existing article-posting requirement, the person has to have been an active member for at least one year for silver, and three years for gold. I think the user level advancement for just being on CP for a year is bogus. That means someone could post zero messages and zero articles and still be gold in three years.
Maybe the vote weighting for articles needs to include the following items for the voter:
- article count in the code category (so someone that has never written an article in "MFC/C++" has a much lower weighted vote than someone that's posted even just 1).
- average article rating for that voter
Of course, we have the continuing problem of people being able to create multiple accounts, and until Chris addresses that, it's going to be an uphill battle.
Maybe a fix for that would be to have the site automatically email inactive users to see if they really exist, or start deleting accounts of people with no activity after a certain amount of time (few/no messages, no articles, and no downloads).
I'm aware that CP makes money because of it's user count, but it's also widely known that a good number of these "users" are duplicate accounts for people that want to abuse the site. Maybe one approach to fixing this is to not allow gmail, hotmail and mail accounts of that ilk to be used for email addresses. Since CP doesn't sell/distribute user info, there's no reason people can't use "real" email accounts.
[edit]
Here's a perfect example of someone that SHOULD NOT be a gold member - he's been here over a year, posted NO articles, and only five messages in that time - his gold membership is bullshit:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?id=671573[^]
[/edit]
-- modified at 6:17 Tuesday 21st November, 2006
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Maybe it's too easy to become a gold and/or silver member
I have always thought that. Just simply having an account that does absolutely nothing but sit there is not a good reason to have your status boosted. One has to earn a platinum status, why not earn the other levels also?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I partially agree. I'd like a way to give someone who primarily lurks some status over someone who's only logged in twice. Perhaps instead of giving credit for days since account creation, the number of unique days the user logged in could be used for a time component instead. ie 200-250 login-days counting for a status increase instead of 365 callenderdays.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they do have to post x number of articles to earn a silver or gold - it's the "bonus" advancement based simply on the age of the account that I have a problem with.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
You can earn gold solely by message count and time in service. I've done it.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: That means someone could post zero messages and zero articles and still be gold in three years.
I thought they had to post at least one message to start off the process. But I understand your sentiment 
Formula 1 - Short for "F1 Racing" - named after the standard "help" key in Windows, it's a sport where participants desperately search through software help files trying to find actual documentation. It's tedious and somewhat cruel, most matches ending in a draw as no participant is able to find anything helpful. - Shog9
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: 5) If someone votes a 1, they must provide a valid reason.
Would be very nice to see that happen 
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
5) If someone votes a 1, they must provide a valid reason.
They can just type some junk char for the reason and press one. Unless the reasons are moderated it would not help and doing that is again going to mean a lot of moderators and a lot of work.
Tarakeshwar Reddy
MCP, CCIE Q(R&S)
Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
|
|
|
|
|
Typing a lot of junk would be cause for a platinum member to delete the vote.
Typing *nothing* would be cause for a platinum member to delete the vote.
Commenting about the article author instead of the article would be cause for a platinum member to delete the vote.
The article author doesn't have to specifically request action unless it appears that platinum members haven't noticed the article abuse.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Or why not let the article author delete the vote?
|
|
|
|
|
Do you seriously think that's a good idea?
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Do you seriously think that's a good idea?
Possibly. If I were writing articles because I wanted to bolster up my CV, I wouldn't want some jack coming along and voting it down because it wasn't exactly what he was looking for or have a grudge, being a prick or what ever. I guess that is what IEEE and ACM are for
|
|
|
|
|
I think his point is that if article authors could delete votes, they could delete low votes regardless of the *real* quality of their article.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza ~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
|
|
|
|
|
Ashley van Gerven wrote: I think his point is that if article authors could delete votes, they could delete low votes regardless of the *real* quality of their article.
Yes. I am sure some people may just look past the low votes. I mentioned in another post that there have been times I found some "gems" in the purgatory 
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes the votes on the articles is not a big deal.
I have liked some articles that are in pulgatory, well they were not well formated and the article was too simple to be an article. but then when i wanted some information, i found it there.
Also if you read some of the pulgatory articles's forum, you will see someone has liked a lot and was a very useful to him/her.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.Prakash wrote:
I have liked some articles that are in pulgatory, well they were not well formated and the article was too simple to be an article
I agree. I've found one or two gems in the purgatory before.
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed a few times over the last few days a slight bug in the time stamp on new messages. For new messages the time is sometimes reported as ( -3 minutes ago ). Here[^] is an example where I replied directly after the user posted. If you notice my timestamp and the users, Mine is a minute ahead. Or is this what happens when users step up from being a newbie ( reading the minds of users and being able to post replies before they even ask  )
|
|
|
|
|
Known bug I believe - I had one that said -5 minutes this morning Possibly a result of having multiple web servers. Just a guess there though. It's a minor issue in my opinion, and probably would go away once Chris and gang finish the .NET 2 port.
|
|
|
|
|
It some times get annoying when the person who has created the thread deletes his post and it messes the whole thread.
Why not change the functionality of delete to just erase the contents of the message and change the subject to "Message Deleted".
Tarakeshwar Reddy
MCP, CCIE Q(R&S)
Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
|
|
|
|
|
Tarakeshwar Reddy wrote: Why not change the functionality of delete to just erase the contents of the message and change the subject to "Message Deleted".
It does work that way some times - but there seems to be some flaw that causes it to not work that way at times.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: It does work that way some times
I was under the impression few users did that to ensure it doesnt mess the thread.
Tarakeshwar Reddy
MCP, CCIE Q(R&S)
Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
|
|
|
|
|
Tarakeshwar Reddy wrote:
I was under the impression few users did that to ensure it doesnt mess the thread.
Nope - that's not so
|
|
|
|
|
If there are no child messages then the message is completely deleted. If there is a child message then the message contents are replaced to ensure threading is maintained. If someone deletes a message just when someone posts a reply then weirdness(tm) happens.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
