|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If someone deletes a message just when someone posts a reply then weirdness(tm) happens.
Yeah, that's happened a few times.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If there are no child messages then the message is completely deleted.
one trivial solution is that even messages without any child messages are not completely deleted, but replaced like others. although it does create some junk in the forum, but eliminates the problem and solves the confusion when a reply reaches your mailbox but does not show up on the forum.
I am sure you guys would have thought of this solution; the reasons you have not done it yet could be:
- don't want "no content" posts/threads floating around.
- it is too complicated, so not worth the effort because the bug occurs rarely.
|
|
|
|
|
...anyone?
When there are enough  articles on a certain topic to create a new section, it's a good habit to relieve "General" groups of some of their load... especially when the topic is very likely to expand. 
|
|
|
|
|
I second that. There is a limited source of good AI related articles out there ( that I have been able to find ). Perhaps if a new section was created it might encourage some of the existing writers to fill it out a little. Perhaps the Mods could give it a trial for a few months?
|
|
|
|
|
Having to scroll/page down through 17 screens of article to reach the messageboard at the bottom of a big article is very annoying.
http://www.codeproject.com/cs/miscctrl/csharpgridcontrol.asp?forumid=14109
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
I voted your suggestion a 5. But, you could always press the [End] key - works in FF and IE.
|
|
|
|
|
and then I have to page up from the bottom. It's an improvment, but still not ideal behavior.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a good idea to me.
BTW - if you ever need to provide such a link, tacking <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/cs/miscctrl/csharpgridcontrol.asp?forumid=14109#ForumTable" rel="nofollow">#ForumTable</a> onto the end of the URL should do it...
|
|
|
|
|
sorry it didn't worked in ie
It is Good to be Important but!
it is more Important to be Good
[My Question]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
