|
Elina Blank wrote: Am going to look at it now
Hello Elina, any update to this? Thanks
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry - I'm the slow coach here.
I was in the middle of updating the system and found a small bug that has required a lot of reworking and cleaning out of some deadwood (spring cleaning early). Just doing some final testing and will have the new code up in a jiffy.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Sorry - I'm the slow coach here.
No worries, just wondering is all.
Thanks for the update though
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
I do have one quick question for you, what ever happened with the RSS feed for all user blogs? It only looks like you can look at an individuals blog in RSS now.
Thanks
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Thanks...
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
CAN YOU GUYS PLEASE STOP. Can you find some other way to take people off of the front page other than degrading our articles. It's really annoying I get a little insulted when you guys do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you feel that somebody has voted 3 to get rid of one of your articles? Maybe they voted 3 because they just weren't keen on it, or didn't understand it. Also - why do you think the Suggestions forum is the place to post this? One thing though - I'm now curious enough about your article to want to take a look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Look, this isn't just my articles. I've seen this done to everyones when they get a vote of 5 and then their article sits on the front page for the whole day. Someone places a vote of 3 and never comments. It's extremely rude if you ask me and I'd never do it to someone else. I consider this a "Site Bug" and thats why I placed it here. There has got to be someone out there who has noticed this too. Hopefully someone else will speek up too. I said my words and now I guess I'll shut up until someone else complains. I apologize if I sound like a whiner who can't face the fact they got a 3 on an article. That is not my intent. I love feedback, I just hate feedback that doesn't send me into a better direction.
|
|
|
|
|
At least it wasn't a 1. The forced comment for 1 and 2 votes probably saved you from a totally unrealistic vote. I don't use sharepoint, so I can't comment on the veracity of the code, and am therefore unqualified to vote on it, but it's certainly worth at least a 3. If I used SharePoint, and if the code works (and I'm sure it does), it's a 4. If I actually used the code and it solved a problem for me, it would be a 5.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
We may ask for a new feature: the home addresses of all article's voting people... 
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just saying... Every night someone votes a 3 on new articles (not just mine) without leaving a courtesy message on why. I'm not saying that my articles don't deserve a 3 but I'm saying they don't deserve a 3 just because someone is tired of looking at them on the front page. I would appreciate it if there was another way to take it off. I would rather it not be displayed on the front page then have it knocked because it's scoped to a specific audience.
|
|
|
|
|
Ny suspicion is that you've been downvoted by somebody who has an article that's also on the front-page or has just been knocked off and wants to get it back to the top. Possibly one way to get round this would be to ban somebody from voting on articles in the front page if they have just submitted an article (and then nullify any votes they've just placed if they post a new article within 5 days).
|
|
|
|
|
We're putting in place more voting diagnostics so we can find this sort of stuff and just nuke it.
The system's not perfect, but I think an 'ultimate' solution is pretty much impossible unless you force full disclosure of all votes.
...and then people just create anonymous accounts...
|
|
|
|
|
How about exposing all article voters, < 3 requires a comment all others are at least listed.
I like to check the quality of the 3 voter, and would like the opportunity to discuss the reason for the vote, especially if the voter is someone I respect, a writer or supporter of the forums.
Although this has the potential to start a flame war (probably why it has not been done) when some tri voter passes through I think it would eliminate these.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a CEO or a manager, and I don't intend to be one in the next few years.
When I selection "MFC/C++" in the "Article Category" section, CP always resets it to "CEO/Manager"
(On Firefox 3.0.6)
Thanks.
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you trying clearing your CodeProject cookies? I've seen that before (only on Firefox) and the only way I can get it to reset is to clear cookies, after which it seems to work fine again.
I've not encourntered this on Chrome, Opera or IE.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll eat my cookies and report back.
(seems to work ok on safari on OSX).
THanks.
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading this thread in the soapbox[^] when I got this idea. It's not original as I got it from photo.net where people can choose to allow/disallow ratings on their uploaded photos. Only rated photos show up in the top-x sections, competitions etc.
Similarly we could allow an author to disallow ratings on his article. It will be marked as unrated and will not show up in searches based on vote-count, popularity-count etc. The only statistic it will have is view-count.
And readers can choose to see only rated articles. That way they can avoid viewing rating-disabled articles.
You may feel that some authors might abuse this to post poor articles and then disable rating. But "Report this article" will continue to work, so if enough people report it, it will get deleted. This system works very well in photo.net and people don't complain about the bad ratings they get because they know they chose to get those ratings.
[Chris : If you like this idea and are going to add it to the todo, please insert it at the top if it's a stack or the bottom if it's a queue implementation]
|
|
|
|
|
The 'force a comment' system has alleviated a lot of the spurious 1-voting so I don't feel the issue is as relevant anymore. See John's reply about the age of the votes.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The 'force a comment' system has alleviated a lot of the spurious 1-voting so I don't feel the issue is as relevant anymore. See John's reply about the age of the votes.
Yep I fully agree - that worked great. A lot better than I had initially thought it will.
I still think the un-ratable option is a good one - though I personally would never use it on my articles.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: ou may feel that some authors might abuse this to post poor articles
What other reason would there be? Seriously, I use ratings when I search for articles - looking at the highest rating first.
Wouldn't the net effect be to create a "kiddie section", that wouldn't be fully integrated with the rest of the site?
I'm not getting this suggestion, Nish.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: What other reason would there be? Seriously, I use ratings when I search for articles - looking at the highest rating first.
Well many people here complain about their article receiving low ratings. I am sure some of them would prefer to disable ratings on the article. You'll find that CP already implements this for ShowCase articles. So there won't be any need to write extra code for this feature.
Hans Dietrich wrote:
I'm not getting this suggestion, Nish.
Well I didn't think everyone would like the idea (Chris didn't for instance). Photo.net (the biggest photo community online) implements this and it works great for them. People who think they don't want the public to rate their photos just disable ratings.
It won't really be a "kiddie" section - it'd be an "unrated" section. For classification purposes, they can be treated as being 2.0 rated - so they show up in searches based on rating/popularity.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see the need. Like Chris said, the forced comment thing has alleviated pretty much all of the drive-by 1 voting on articles...
"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
|
|
|
|
|
I was submitting my first article and had filled out most of the page when I decided to click one of the links that provides information about the box I was filling in. Fear hit me when I saw the page refresh. Then I calmed down and told myself "no problem, this is a site for coders... they have this covered". So, I read the info and clicked the "Back" button on my browser.... ARGH!!... the information I put some time into was gone!
Please update all the "info" links on the article submission pages to open another window, or save the information... web programming 101... maybe I'll do an article on this. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
