|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: 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?
The part where you suggest it hinders. That's purely your own objection to it. I see the double underlines and realize that there could be more for me, if I need clarification.
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: The Grand Negus wrote:
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?
The part where you suggest it hinders. That's purely your own objection to it. I see the double underlines and realize that there could be more for me, if I need clarification.
I think you missed (1) the word "arbitrary", and (2) the fact that IntelliTXT ads don't clarify - they typically describe something that is tangential (at best) to the point of the sentence in which they appear. Emphasizing words an author intended to emphasize helps - of course. Providing "footnotes" for unusual or easily misunderstood terms may also be reasonable. But highlighting arbitrary words - arbitrary relative to the intent of the sentence - hinders; it's mere distraction. And that's what IntelliTXT does. Perhaps you're mistaking it for "hypertext" (which, incidently, is also difficult to read)?
|
|
|
|
|
With all of the hatred that spews forth from you, I’m rather surprised that you’re back trolling the message boards here at Code Project. Why not create your own message boards at your website and troll those. I’m sure the legions of users for your umm products would love it.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
Since we have no way to change our votes for a given article, how about giving the article author a way to reset the votes for his article. The old article would be copied, thus creating a new article ID, and the old article would be deleted. This would address the "you have already voted for this article" issue, and would give authors a method for improving their articles' scores without having to do a complete re-submission.
"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: Since we have no way to change our votes for a given article, how about giving the article author a way to reset the votes for his article. The old article would be copied, thus creating a new article ID, and the old article would be deleted. This would address the "you have already voted for this article" issue, and would give authors a method for improving their articles' scores without having to do a complete re-submission.
Sounds good... apart from the crappy article writers will abuse this by resetting their votes everytime they got a low score.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly
Michael P Butler wrote: John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Since we have no way to change our votes for a given article
This will be fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
What about the option of having our articles voted for or not? The showcase articles don't allow for people to vote on the product being presented.
Fixing our ability to change our vote would be nice. There have been times I voted someone down because the article looked crummy, then they go and fix it and looks great, leaving me with the bum feeling of voting them down on an older version of the voted down article.
|
|
|
|
|
John, what article(s) in particular are you refering to where this has been a problem?
I don't agree with the idea of resubmitting an article for voting like this, but here are some alternatives I'd support:
1. Weighting votes, so that someone who just signed up to vote (and has no "seniority", as in no articles, very few message posts, few votes) will have less than a full vote.
2. Deleting the votes of someone whose account got deleted (I assume this does occur for abuse).
Of course, both of these may not be very attractive options for Chris, though, since they may require much more tracking data.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Gerrans wrote: Weighting votes, so that someone who just signed up to vote (and has no "seniority", as in no articles, very few message posts, few votes) will have less than a full vote.
This happens now. As top poster, I can tell because of the influence my vote can have ( for example, if I give a 5 to something I think has unfairly been given a 1, it doesn't go to 2.5, but higher, depending on the amount of posts/etc, by the person who did the 1 )
Christian Graus - C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. How about this experiment: I'll give John's original post on this topic a 4 vote and you give it a 2. We should expect it to come out somewhere below 3.0.
|
|
|
|
|
Strangely, the 'advertising in signatures' post below has not been voted on. I'll give it a 1, you give it a 5 and see where you end up.
Christian Graus - C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Dang. It already had two votes by the time I saw this. 
I guess someone else with similar seniority as me voted John's post a 5, since it now has 2 votes and is a 4.5.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, people tend to vote my articles based on the voter's politics (and this is verifiable by anyone that's been here for any length of time) - a good example is the article I wrote about making cells blink in Chris' grid control. But there are many articles where people say "If it was formatted better...", or "I'll vote after you improve it..."
Votes are already weighted based on the membership level the voter has attained.
I don't thin they track who submits a vote.
"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: people tend to vote my articles based on the voter's politics
I don't vote by politics. That is a lame approach. I vote by the content regardless of it usefulness for me.
Good content + good effort = 5 vote
|
|
|
|
|
What are the rules for "advertising" in signatures on this site?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: What are the rules for "advertising" in signatures on this site?
A big no-no. You'll get flamed big time.
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: The Grand Negus wrote:
What are the rules for "advertising" in signatures on this site?
A big no-no. You'll get flamed big time.
Are we on the same site? Just a glance at the Lounge reveals:
Judah Humango and Gary Kirkham advertising their blogs;
Christopher Duncan pushing his books and his consultancy;
Peter Chen promoting cancer research;
Dario Solera announcing his upgraded wiki;
Toxcct campaigning for his articles;
Chris Losinger selling image processing programs; and
Nishant Sivakumar telling us about his new book...
With no "big time flaming" in sight.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
