|
Noticing the huge amount of space on the Lounge frequently taken up by deleted posts from certain members (who seem to specialize in getting their posts deleted), and the responses to the deleted posts ...
And then, following in the wake of the deleted posts, "meta-deleted-post" posts like this one : [^] :
What about the idea that all such threads, including the responses, are moved to a special place outside the Lounge : then, on the Lounge, put a simple message saying the thread authored by "xxxx" on "#date" has been removed to "#name of forum" with a simple link to the thread's new location : and, for this simple message only, disable the ability to reply to it on the Lounge.
The idea would be to thus create a place where deleted threads can live on in all their glory, and people can comment to their heart's content forever and ever, while those of us who have no interest in "flotsam and jetsam" can happily enjoy the Lounge.
This would have the effect of making the Lounge less cluttered, as it is today, with whole pages, on which the entire contents are about threads which have been deleted.
Perhaps this would also be an appropriate place to put threads which clearly state they have no purpose other than to "make noise" : [^] :
"I was just trying to see how many people would click on this message. Too bad the site doesn't count views on a given message. ... snip ...I'm at work, bored (waiting on the boss to provide some info), so I thought I'd jump on today's "Why XXXXX Sucks Today" bandwagon..."
best, Bill
Dante Aligheri, Purgatorio, Canto XVI, lines 79-83 :
"A maggior forza e a miglior natura
liberi soggiacete; e quella cria
la mente in voi, che 'l ciel no ha in sua cura.
Però, se 'l mondo presente disvia,
in voi è la cagione, in voi si cheggia.
To a greater force, and to a better nature,
you, free, are subject, and that creates
the mind in you, which the heavens have not in their charge.
Therefore if the present world go astray,
the cause is in you, in you it is to be sought."
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 11:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: What about the idea that all such threads, including the responses, are moved to a special place outside the Lounge : then
Avoid cluttering the Lounge - my vote of 5 right away !
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
But how would this work? Do I shift a thread if only the top message is deleted? If a certain percentage of messages are deleted? What if the first message is nuked but the remaining messages are gold?
Typically if a member is being abusive I'll either move the threads to the backroom (if things are getting out of hand) or just have a chat to the member. If it's someone truly being malicious then our Terms Of Use cover that scenario.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: But how would this work? Do I shift a thread if only the top message is deleted? If a certain percentage of messages are deleted? What if the first message is nuked but the remaining messages are gold?
Hi Chris,
I realize, in making that suggestion, it's a sticky one : who's got the time to review every secondary post on a thread, and make individual decisions as to what is valuabe and should remain ?
My comment/suggestion is based on the following assumptions :
1. if the post that started the thread (OP) has been removed, it has been removed for good reasons. If I ever had a post removed that I started a thread with, I'd immediately assume I had violated CP norms or culture in some way, and I'd apologize (not on the Lounge : since that would be "prolonging the life" of the removed post), but probably here : on this forum. But, if I felt I had really grossly defamed or insulted someone on the Lounge : I'd apologize there as well.
2. my suggestion is made in an absence of any real "quantitative" knowledge of the ratio of posting to threads (whose OP is removed) before and after the act of removal, but with the assumption that most of the secondary posts were posted prior to the removal of the first post.
I do believe that most CP members using the Lounge would not object to their secondary posts, in the case of deletion of an OP, travelling along with the deleted post's "stub" (carcass ?) to this hypothetical "reservation" away from the Lounge.
In fact I would predict a shift in Lounge culture over a period of a month or two where people would accept this new "paradigm" and actually be happy with it. And, I'd also expect one or two angry "how dare you re-locate my precious words" responses 
But, here's an idea : why not do a survey : either on the Lounge, or more formally in the form of CP's monthly surveys. I'm not deluded enough to feel I, in any way, represent the modal CP user, or even modal Lounge user
In fact, I'd guess I am so far-out on the "fringe of the bell curve" of CP Lounge users, in general, that this may be a "frivolous" idea, well worth ignoring. And my "feelings" in no way could, or would be, "hurt" if there was no response to this idea.
And, speaking of "frivolity" : perhaps we could use the good-old marketing techniques (so characteristic of software and hardware business) to make this more palatable to CP Loungers, turn the "stickiness" into a new "feature."
Let's name this special forum for removed OP's, and subsequent secondary posts, and tertiary independent posts "after the fact of OP removal" talking about "what did I miss when ..." : "Heaven."
far-out, man, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I do believe that most CP members using the Lounge would not object to their secondary posts, in the case of deletion of an OP, travelling along with the deleted post's "stub" (carcass ?) to this hypothetical "reservation" away from the Lounge.
In fact I would predict a shift in Lounge culture over a period of a month or two where people would accept this new "paradigm" and actually be happy with it. And, I'd also expect one or two angry "how dare you re-locate my precious words" responses
This is what we essentially already do (and have done). The offending party usually gets the hint and life goes on, and then new wanna-be trolls crawl out from under their bridge and off we go again.
The trick is finding the time and exercising the correct judgment. People should have the right to be heard. As long as they are on-topic and within the Terms of Use.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi CP Friends,
IE 8. Win Vista.
Every time I select a block of text and choose to format it italicized, using the formatting facilities in the CP message editor :
When I post or preview the message it does not appear in italics : rather what appears is <i> ... italicized text ... <i>
But, if I edit the message and remove the "<i>" and ".</i>" formatting tags, then select the block again, and italicize again :
The second time, the text appears properly italicized.
thanks, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
How about this IE8 on Windows 7.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard,
I'm happy if it works for you on Win 7 and IE8; the behavior I am reporting (and <i>this </i>is the forum to report site problems) is, as I said clearly, on Win Vista with IE8.
Of course it may not be a CP related issue at all : maybe there's some obscure setting in IE8 that's causing this : that's why I am reporting it, and that's why I reported this as "consistent problems ...," not using the word : "bug" 
Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have "Do not interpret HTML tags" checked? (just under the main Text entry box)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Do you have "Do not interpret HTML tags" checked? (just under the main Text entry box)
Hi Chris,
Yes ... duhhhhh ... unchecking that took care of it, as well as restoring the blockquotes.
I take note of the fact this is the second time recently that I observed a change in CP behavior, and assumed that either it was by "design" by CP, or must be a mistake in my settings external to CP : another indicator of an ingrained attitude that "CP could do no wrong."
I will try to "root out" this assumption, and replace it with the attitude : "I must be doing something wrong."
thanks, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 10:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Hi CP Friends,
I would consider it very inauspicious to have my #1000th. post on CP (I'm at #999 now) be a flame, so I'd like to ask your advice on how to handle a certain behavior on the Lounge.
Twice now a certain person on the Lounge has responded to certain original posts (not by me, but which I have responded on) by starting his response with
"Bill Woodruff wrote"
... posts from the original post, not by BW, here
The first time he did this, I responded with a polite note just mentioning that he had mis-quoted me : I didn't "take him to task" in any way.
So, now, the second time this has happened, I've asked him directly asking him to stop this, and today received this reply :
"Actually I (and you, and the OP) quoted Strunk, with citation, so it's not a misquote, at all.
Is there a reason why you think that the misleading quoting "mechanism" you appear to have adopted is better than the one provided by CP?
Just curious, 'cause it ain't.
This is pretty amazing to me; since it seems to imply the person in question is actually deliberately attributing to me words that are not mine : I can't imagine any possible motivation for doing this ! To my knowledge I've never commented negatively on anything said commentor said.
Further, the person, implies I am not using CP's standard quote mechanism, when, in fact I am; the only variation is that I am inserting a carriage return, and putting the quote in italics which, in my opinion, makes it more apparent that the quote is a quote (coming from a long background of technical editing, having any quote without quotation marks doesn't quite seem enough to me).
Okay, so I "voted to remove" the comments by said unrepentant mis-quoter.
So, just curious to ask you : would you "flame back," or just "report as abuse" and "sit back" as I have done ? Or what ?
thanks, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
Why not just use the "Quote Selected Text" button, as it automatically attributes to the author of the message you are replying to. If someone does misquote you all you can do is respond directly refuting the quote, assuming his message is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Why not just use the "Quote Selected Text" button, as it automatically attributes to the author of the message you are replying to. If someone does misquote you all you can do is respond directly refuting the quote, assuming his message is incorrect.
Richard,
As I said : in the first instance of this person mis-quoting me, I did just post a polite message stating that he mis-quoted me; anyone can make a mistake like that; it's no big deal.
But, if someone starts mis-quoting you repeatedly, and, when asked not to, replies with "baiting," and appears to be mis-quoting you deliberately : that's more than a minor thing : it's called "lying," and it's also an insult to the original poster (whose words are mis-attributed to another), to the person incorrectly cited as the author of the words, and, imho to the CodeProject community itself.
By the way, I do use the "quote selected text" button, and only usually add to that, because of my thirty-year plus experience in technical editing, a slight emphasis using one carriage return and italics (well, I attempt the italics). That's a whole different ball of wax than "mis-quoting."
Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: By the way, I do use the "quote selected text" button
Strange how it shows up in the same font as all the rest of your message. I wonder if this has anything to do with your italics problem.
As to the 'baiting' issue, I think that's just something you (may) have to put up with in the Lounge, especially from Trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
Click "Vote to Remove Message". If the person continues to do this then report him or her.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think the best response to being "baited" is no response at all. Though it is tough to do just that at times.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Meech wrote: I think the best response to being "baited" is no response at all. Though it is tough to do just that at times.
Hi Chris,
I agree with you on that. My usual "psychic insulation" is quite good.
But, I will confront someone I think is "lying." And, to me, deliberately mis-quoting another person's words is worth taking on.
By the way, I have lived, for many years now, in a culture (Theravadan Buddhist Thailand) where non-confrontation (in "public"), to avoid "losing face," or "breaking" someone else's "face," is one of the paramountly modal norms and highest cultural values. "Etiquette" in speech and manners, gestures, and behavior, is highly refined here (in northern Thailand, particularly).
Of course that's on the "surface" : the moment Thais get behind the wheel of a car, or a motorcycle, they transform into drivers as aggressive as those of New York City and Delhi. And homicide, and domestic violence rates, here, are as high as those of "western" countries. The modal crime here is one of sexual revenge, often by women on men for their philandering.
Of course some of what appears to be the "aggressive" and "reckless" driving is a result of the fact they are just not paying attention to the road, or anyone else on it. And then there's the astounding number of drunk drivers helping the traffic along to become a slaughterhouse.
A paradox : Thai society contains not only people who have a "great mastery" of paying attention (usually the "fringe" elements in Buddhism here, the "forest" monks, not the "city" monks), but a general populace who are constantly distracted, and have ver low attention spans ?
best, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Further, the person, implies I am not using CP's standard quote mechanism, when, in fact I am; the only variation is that I am inserting a carriage return, and putting the quote in italics which, in my opinion, makes it more apparent that the quote is a quote (coming from a long background of technical editing, having any quote without quotation marks doesn't quite seem enough to me).
CP's standard quote mechanism is <blockquote>, your messages[^] are appearing with the quote only in italics and not block quoted. Is this by design on your part because the result is that what you're quoting isn't marked off in the standard fashion and does, without more detailed inspection, appear to be material that you wrote.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Bill,
It's in part your own doing. When you remove the block-quote, you lose the style CP has for quotes, and to someone replying to your post it's not immediately obvious that some of the text in your message is a quote. I had to read your post twice to realize that the text you had was a quote from Quartz' original post. I don't blame the guy for thinking those words were from you.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: It's in part your own doing.
Hi Nish,
I agree with you; clearly my having the "Do not interpret HTML tags" checkbox checked resulted in a non-standard appearance to my quoting. That was an accident; it's funny I don't have any memory of checking that checkbox.
However, in my opinion, someone who took offense to my doing this should have reported me to the site here in this forum, or voted to remove my messages by reporting them as "abuse."
A CP member who uses a mistake on another's part as an excuse to take "vigilante" action by deliberately mis-quoting not only the original poster, but the commenter, is, in my humble opinion, someone with a real problem, and someone who does not respect CP.
I feel the same way about certain CP members (among the most "prolific" on the Lounge) who continually post their own technical questions in the Lounge which clearly belong in specific forums here that are "sitting there waiting," and who, for some reasons, are not flamed for doing so. While others are grilled down to "char."
I respect CP. And I apolgize for any confusion my simple mistake caused.
thanks, Bill
"Many : not conversant with mathematical studies, imagine that because it [the Analytical Engine] is to give results in numerical notation, its processes must consequently be arithmetical, numerical, rather than algebraical and analytical. This is an error. The engine can arrange and combine numerical quantities as if they were letters or any other general symbols; and it fact it might bring out its results in algebraical notation, were provisions made accordingly." Ada, Countess Lovelace, 1844
|
|
|
|
|
The reputation graph size is not the same for all users, atleast not on my system. A majority of the graphs are scaling to the graph window, but a few (like mine) do not scale up.
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
|
|
|
|
|
Try hitting Ctrl+F5.
You are probably seeing caching issues.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: caching issues
I cleaned up the IE cache and tried again, no luck. This problem seems to be occuring on IE 8.
The graph works fine on other browsers.
Are any other users experiencing this?
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 12:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Abhinav S wrote: Are any other users experiencing this?
Yes. Same happens for me, also using IE8.
|
|
|
|
|
_Damian S_ wrote: Yes. Same happens for me, also using IE8.
Strange - when I view your graph in IE8 I can view it perfectly.
Is there a bug in the graph wrt to IE8? I am very certain I've cleared my cache.
I went to tools > preferences > delete - unchecked the first box (preserve favourite website data), checked all the others and ran delete (and I did Ctrl + F5 separately).
| There are only 10 types of people in this world — those who understand binary, and those who don't. |
modified on Thursday, January 7, 2010 2:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
