|
The Grand Negus wrote: There is no need for anyone to be a whore
You really need to take this to the Soapbox...
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote:
So, all you who love this site and respect its members, buy support so this IntelliTXT travesty can end!
I did. But I keep IntelliTXT on too, because CP is too valuable a resource to lose. You have the option to turn off IntelliTXT, if you don't like it then do so and then shut up. It is not often that you have a choice, but here at CP you do.
You are obviously just trolling and I don't know why I've even bothered to reply...
|
|
|
|
|
I wish someone - anyone - here could see that I'm not talking about IntelliTXT per se, but IntelliTXT as a bad idea - together with the fact that a bad idea plus a box to turn it off is not just a bad idea, but a worse one (due to the additional baggage). I'm talking about how bad ideas get accepted, and spread, and are then taken for granted - resulting in lower standards for all of us. I'm talking about design issues and what we, as developers, should do about them.
|
|
|
|
|
I was not aware that this site had intellitxt. But now that I know, and now that I know it is optional, I went into my profile settings and turned it on. It is the least I can do to support this site.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't know why I've even bothered to reply
Because you care! (Unlike others who seem to think that CP can survive on fresh air)
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: It is also a matter of principle that bandwidth costs money.
I know English isn't your native tongue, so I'll help you out here.
It's a matter of fact that bandwidth costs money. It's a matter of principle how one acquires that money.
|
|
|
|
|
principle and possibilities.
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Velopers, Develprs, Developers!
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify!|Fold With Us!
|
|
|
|
|
But it's the principles one lives by that determines which possibilities are acceptable.
My principles prevent me from seriously considering the possibility that we might, for one reason or another, color-code and double-underline arbitrary words in someone else's sentences. Why? Because it's unnecessary, improper, tasteless, and contrary to the very purpose of a sentence, which is clear and concise communication of a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
IntelliTxt ads are annoying, but comparing them with drug dealing and prostitution is simply absurd. The situation here is simple, as I understand it: Chris feels that his site cannot survive without generating more revenue than what can be obtained through banner ads and paid supporters, as things currently stand. He knows that most us would rather be annoyed by the IntelliTxt ads than lose the site. They were the least obtrusive option he could think of, so he went ahead with them, and even gave us an option to disable them. There's nothing unethical about it, because the damage done is less than the good that it accomplishes for the same people who it annoys, and so far it looks to Chris to be the best feasible option.
|
|
|
|
|
J. Dunlap wrote: He knows that most us would rather be annoyed by the IntelliTxt ads than lose the site.
Does he? Or do most of the "members" turn them off, which does nothing for the revenue situation (since, I presume, the advertisers pay per view).
It just amazes me that someone (like Chris) who is in the "article publishing" business would find such a solution palatable. Or wise - making one's product "annoying" is generally not considered a good business decision.
The unethical nature of the act becomes apparent if one agrees that authority and influence imply responsibility. Young, impressionable programmers on this site look up to Chris, and he therefore has the responsibility to be a good example to them. Some of these young people will go on to design systems for others: Will they recommend clean, simple designs, or "annoying" (but expedient) ones?
|
|
|
|
|
if it annoys some so much there must be a cost to disable it which members have to pay 
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Or do most of the "members" turn them off
Maybe they do. At least there's the option. But also consider the fact that to be able to turn them off, you have to be a member in the first place. And my guess is that a considerable portion (maybe even more than 50%) of the bandwidth is requested by non-members.
"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: Maybe they do. At least there's the option. But also consider the fact that to be able to turn them off, you have to be a member in the first place. And my guess is that a considerable portion (maybe even more than 50%) of the bandwidth is requested by non-members.
Even worse! What kind of tasteless person would want a non-member to be exposed to IntelliTXT in the articles? Might as well put up a banner ad that says, "Our articles are ugly and hard to read! Join us!"
|
|
|
|
|
Please, give it a rest. You are worse than a Jehova's Witness.
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt many people will find it a real issue, since they've come to the site to find information that may well be saving them hours or days of hassle. Bear in mind some sites charge membership fees for access to articles. They also have to pay the authors, but I'm sure their bandwidth costs are not that high.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: making one's product "annoying" is generally not considered a good business decision
You should know about this subject very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Please Go To HELL Mr the osmosian order...
now it's clear, i don't like you at all. All you do around here is concentrating people around your own silly person. i know, as an old priest, you like that, but you already know what i think about that (F*ck OFF).
if you cannot integrate to our community the way it already lives WITHOUT you, then go away, far. Create your own site/community, and don't come break my balls with your insanities...
|
|
|
|
|
A bit ranty, but I agree with the sentiment nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
i really don't understand what's the problem with him...
maybe he doesn't like to be false sometimes, and never like not to have the last word.
|
|
|
|
|
 I thought this wasn't the Soapbox
|
|
|
|
|
Can we please keep this kid friendly?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Can we please keep this kid friendly?
Thank you, Chris. I mentioned it in an earlier post 
|
|
|
|
|
There, there. There, there.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Osmo, thanks for pointing out the IntelliTXT. I've turned it on now. So far with all your yammering about it, you haven't layed out one sensible or reasonable concern about it that is based in fact. Rather you have continually droned on and on about your entirely subjective mistaste for it. Are you a distant relative of the Luddites?
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Meech wrote: Rather you have continually droned on and on about your entirely subjective mistaste for it
The purpose of a sentence is to convey a thought. Color-coding and double-underlining arbitrary words in a sentence hinders that purpose. It is therefore undesirable.
Which part of that is subjective? Which part is a matter of taste?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
