|
The points shown on the profile page are different (lower) from what's shown in the graph. I know this has already been reported, but since you guys just updated the site, I didn't know if you'd taken a stab at a fix yet..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
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - I just replied to Sandeep about this.
The rep history population script I ran over the weekend was only meant to be run once. We've since run it 6 times and it's at the point where we'll make it so it can be run without screwing with you guys, and can be run in two parts (complete restore, or just a sync of the pre-calculated stuff).cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Mine is the same, graph not matching the tab.  -Bryan
My latest programming adventure was coding the multimedia features for the Rip Ride Rockit coaster at Universal Studios Florida. I love my job.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like your floats are set incorrectly. The question's content div is posted about the same distance from the top of the pane as the vote tally div is tall..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
|
|
|
|
|
OK, found the issue while viewing in IE6 and IE7.
Will fix.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I keep forgetting to mention the browser I'm using. In this particular case, it's IE7...
Maybe what the site needs is a bug reporting page (among all the oher thousands of things you guys have to do) that won't let you submit the bug until you specify the browser you're using.  .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've had a fiddle with it. Let me know if this is better.
(and I enjoy guessing)cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That appears to have fixed it..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
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I had over 510 Organizzer points. Today, I'm at 425. Is the refresh still in progress?.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
|
|
|
|
|
| Maybe you became more disorganised? ------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
| I'll get a fix organised. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't know if it was an error or just a reconsideration of the way points are calculated..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
|
|
|
|
|
Worked it out:
Previously we were awarding points for downvoting. This has been removed and we're now only awarding for upvoting.
The rationale here is two-fold:
1. We want to encourage members to upvote the good stuff. Downvoting helps, too, but we'd rather encourage an upcote for good, and a helpful comment if bad.
2. If someone is going to game the system then the lesser evil is to have spurious upvotes rather than downvotes. No one likes to see an unwarranted downvote on their work, so let's not reward it.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
0) What constitutes up-voting? Voting 3 or higher?
1) It seems to me that organization is organization, despite what is actually done.
2) Maybe it would be more appropriate to award 2 points for up-voting and 1 for down-voting. Down-voting something is sometimes a necessary action to ensure that the forums are pretty much self-cleaning. With the current crop of articles, tips, and messages, it's going to take most people forever to get even silver in organization points if they only get them for up-voting, much less gold or - dare I say i - platinum.
3) Alternative suggestion - Reinstate the 1 point award for voting, but change the cap so that a user can only get, say 20 down vote points per day, but can get 30 up-vote points per day..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
|
|
|
|
|
0. From my observation, thumbsup, good question/answer, 5, and 4 are up-voting, 3 is completely ignored, 2, 1, bad question/answer, and thumpdown are considered down-voting. Should be in the FAQ.
1. that is correct; points should reflect effort, value, or some combination. Upvoting and downvoting take the same effort, and have the same value when done seriously. Nevertheless I am with Chris on not rewarding down-votes in order to prevent new avalanches.
It would help when Chris clarified what Organizer points are for (I see no use yet). Same, to a lesser extent maybe, for the other categories.
[ADDED] Suggestion: downvoting only gets tallied once a certain Organizer level got reached. That almost kills two birds in one go![/ADDED]
3. I'm completely opposed to daily limits, it should not matter whether I have seven light sessions in a week, or a single heavy one. And what is a day anyway, is it crossing the local midnight point, or something arbitrary such as Toronto's local time? should I pause at 11 PM and wait for midnight so I can continue voting? Does not make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I'm completely opposed to daily limits
Maybe we remove limits for members of a certain level.
Limits are a necessary evil to prevent gaming.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Maybe we remove limits for members of a certain level.
that is along the lines of what I added to my previous post regarding down-voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Limits are a necessary evil
Yup, unfortunately, that's very true..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
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I am with Chris on not rewarding down-votes in order to prevent new avalanches.
Maybe down-votes should be awarded points for the voter once the voter acquires a certain point plateau. Say, platiunum authority + platinum debator + silver editor..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: once the voter acquires a certain point plateau. Say, platiunum authority + platinum debator + silver editor.
Bronze or Silver in the one relevant category should be sufficient; if not, it is all pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
{reply to your edit]
What if we:
1. Give downvoting a limit of 1 point a day
2. Make the limit on downvoting disappear once a member has reached Gold Authority or Gold Author.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What if we:
1. Give downvoting a limit of 1 point a day
2. Make the limit on downvoting disappear once a member has reached Gold Authority or Gold Author.
you really want to prevent voting abuse, so it is the voting action itself that needs limits, not the rewarding scheme. Therefore I would prefer it when:
- voting is always rewarded, it is a participation or organizational action after all
- voting is limited, more so for low status, less for high status
Ideas for limits:
- max 3/day for NoStatus (on appropriate category, or overall, except there is no overall NoStatus, everyone is Bronze at least, due to sign-up participation points)
- max 10/day for Bronze
- max 100/day for Silver
- unlimited for Gold/Platinum
I would be inclined to open up things earlier on in the status scale, provided you also have a way to rectify abusers, say fine them 1000 points so they loose (some of) their status.
And I would apply similar things to other voting actions as well (up-votes, remove-votes).
I would even consider limiting posts along similar lines, so a new account simply cannot flood the site with messages.
PS: I am aware I am suggesting daily limits here, although I basically still am opposed to time-related limits, but I do understand those are the easiest to impose. What I really would like is limits on ratio's, such as the ratio up-votes/down-votes must be within [1/3, 3], but that is a lot harder to organize.
|
|
|
|
|
How is this different (apart from always having a limit) than what I suggested?
There is a point where a system can be over-optimised.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
you seemed to limit the rewarding only, not the voting itself. I'm doing the opposite, unless I misunderstood you.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I should have spotted that.
Interesting.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
