|
Abhinav S wrote: So 10 Tips / Tricks = 1 Article.
Yeah, I got that (and I think posting an article is worth more than 100 points, but I digress). However, is that logic carried over into the determination of membership level?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: However, is that logic carried over into the determination of membership level?
The FAQ does not mention anything about this. Hopefully, the CP team can answer this question.
Waiting for their response....
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it has been changed, but an article upvote gets you 10 points and a tip/trick upvote gets you 5.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: gets you 10 points and a tip/trick upvote gets you 5
Ok - that sounds more appropriate - thanks for this informtion.
Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Membership level, as in the simple 1 size fits all broze/silver/gold is in limbo, awaiting an update. We're going to change it so you no longer have a single level, but multiple gold/silver etc based on the different things you do. You could be a gold author, but only a bronze 'expert', or you could be a platinum participant.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I care for that arrangement. As it will severely tweak the concept of member status.
Personally, I'm not fond of editing other people's stuff, nor of having other people edit mine.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: nor of having other people edit mine.
Yeah, I second that. I'd prefer it if others did not edit my articles, unless it's a really minor formatting fix or a typo correction. Maybe gold and platinum authors should have an edit-lock feature where we can prevent others from editing our articles (except for CP staff/editors).
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: unless it's a really minor formatting fix or a typo correction
But how could we do this if we didn't allow others to edit your entries? This is one of the biggest advantages to the wiki-approach we've been adopting. But there's no good way to open up your entries only for minor fixes.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Maybe gold and platinum authors should have an edit-lock feature where we can prevent others from editing our articles
We've given this some thought but I'm personally not fond of it. However we did implement it for Tips/Tricks. The author is able to choose what type of members are able to edit their tip/trick. Also, articles still have the same edit rules they've always had. I.e., other members can't edit your article. Questions and answers, however are far more open.
Consider the following scenario if we were to implement this for Quick Answers:
A gold member posts a question/answer and locks it. A few months pass by after which the author pays no attention to it. There are some issues with the post that other members are dying to correct. Sure, we can have it so that an email is sent to the author but in some cases the author simply won't care (or doesn't have the time) to attend to their post. By allowing other (privileged) members to simply go in and edit the author doesn't have to worry about their entry if they don't want to. But if they do still have a lot of interest in maintaining there article they can simply go in and see any changes (which of course they'll be notified of through email) and choose whether to leave it as is or roll back the changes.
|
|
|
|
|
You could put a reset time on edit locks; ie the author periodically has to renew them indicating that they still have the time/interest to maintain the article and letting them lapse otherwise.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
That's a possibility but I'm thinking it might be a bit annoying and less understandable/commonplace than the wiki approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Thiru
Thanks for the reply. When I saw John's post I wrongly assumed that you are allowing people with certain editor rep to edit anyone's articles. When I say article I mean the old classic article (not blogs or Tip/Trick entries).
For a Tip/Trick, I completely get your design - since from the beginning it was designed to be used in a wiki-ish style. For normal classic articles, it obviously wouldn't be the right approach.
And even for a Tip/Trick, based on your post it seems an author can restrict edits to a certain reputation level - which seems good enough to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Great! 
|
|
|
|
|
But under the new system, who really is a platinum member?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
How do you feel it's best worked out?
More importantly: what is a member level useful for?
I, personally, feel that the concept of a "platinum" member is misleading because a member can be platinum in articles, but not in answers. Or a member may be an absolute fixture here, may spend all his or her days helping others find their way around, giving feedback on new articles, and generally keeping us all amused, but may never have answered a technical question or posted a single article. This person, though, is worth their weight in gold (or platinum, depending how funny their jokes are).
Member levels are used to provide members with access, features and the ability to help out with administration tasks. For this, member level only makes sense in the context of the action. If a member has marked his article as editable by Gold members then you have to be a Gold author / editor to get this access.
However, the bit here that I think is the crux of your question is if you want say "I am a X member", where X in {Bronze,..., Platinum} then what do you say?
My feeling is you should be considered the level that is highest out of all the categories of levels available.
Workable?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Granted, there is no tangible benefit to attaining a certain level - "I'm a Codeproject platinum member and all I got was this lousy t-shirt (that I had to pay for)".
One of the categories I have a problem with is that of "Enquirer". Many of us find the answers to our questions before posting a question on CP. I've been here for nine years, and my Enquirer score is just 492 - not even silver yet. Christian Graus is only at 106 - just barely silver. I don't think either of us will attain Enquirer "Platinum" in our lifetimes.
Chris Maunder wrote: However, the bit here that I think is the crux of your question is if you want say "I am a X member", where X in {Bronze,..., Platinum} then what do you say?
My feeling is you should be considered the level that is highest out of all the categories of levels available.
Yeah, that's what I'm after - how do I describe my membership status? I think that platinum status should be something you have to work hard for. Instead of using the highest single category level, use the average of the highest three levels as the members overall status. I think that would keep platinum "up there" at the level of importance that we all place on it.
Does all this mean that mere duration of membership will no longer be considered for membership level?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
No one - apart from possibly the serial non-googler - is going to achieve platinum enquirer. That status type is only meant to give others a guide as to whether the person asking the question has asked lots (and so knows the deal), a few (they are getting the hang of it) or none (be gentle).
Picking the top 3 and averaging could be a little unrealistic. My original thought was that members would have something like
John Simmons - Platinum Level Author, Gold Level Expert
and leave it at that. Your profile would have the levels of everything else. Or we could possibly have:
John Simmons - Platinum Level Author, Gold Level Expert
(Site Participation: Platinum)
If we want to guilt people into coming and visiting us more often because we may be feeling unloved.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Does all this mean that mere duration of membership will no longer be considered for membership level?
Signing in give you participation points, but other than that, time does not contribute to status. We could certainly have a "active in a given year" event where, if you post 100 messages (or whatever) then you get a chunk of participation points for that year.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If we want to guilt people into coming and visiting us more often because we may be feeling unloved.
I have a thought - maybe we should have a New Member of the Year award for the user that gains the most points (that exceed a specified minimum) over the year. This user would get additional points (like MVPs do, but maybe not as many - say 500 points), as well as his/her choice from a selected group software and/or hardware (like monthly contest winners get, only maybe a little more substantial).
Chris Maunder wrote: if you post 100 messages (or whatever) then you get a chunk of participation points for that year.
How about just giving a 50-point bonus for every 1000 points of overall reputation gained for that year.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
So how is a members overall status going to be determined?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I think overall status level would be just the average of all things (participant, author, authority, editor, etc.,). Just like the graph shows overall reputation.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
If that were to happen, I'd be demoted to Silver. I have (way beyond) platinum status in three of the categories, and bronze in the others. That doesn't seem fair...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the overall reputation should be calculated only by the article count. There are many ways to contribute to the site, and I'm glad they're recognising it now. I'm not sure if you'll be demoted (that may depend on how much you've scored with your contributions, whatever they may be). Perhaps, someone from CP could answer this.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
For the MVP insidivists like yourself, the category of #Kryptonite# should be added.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the style sheets need some work. It seems that it's inserting excessive vertical whitespace before and after major elements (like headers and pre blocks) and it's almost impossible to format your content when the preview shows as it does.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I second that. Forums and (old) articles have a good spatial density, they don't waste screen real estate. The new stuff (QA and TT) is wasting a lot of space. Using them requires a lot of clicking, scrolling and page loading.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
Inserting space before and after PRE tags has been an issue since the year dot. It's not a stylesheet issue (actually, it is easily solvable using CSS, if only everyone would stop using IE6/7), it's a post-processing issue that we know about and are working to fix.
The Preview thing is an odd, odd case. We're on that too.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
