|
Hi guys. I recently noticed that every time I publish an article. One guy usually comes around in forum and votes my hard work with zero rating just because he doesn't like the way I format source code.
That's perfectly fine. I love democracy.
Articles that are dealing with popular things like "capturing video" usually will never have problem with current voting model.
His rant event with few fake accounts will get lost in 96 or so positive votes.
But articles that are useful only to specific but small community have problem.
And we obviously don't wanna end-up in model where people focus only on grid control 
Problem is if one creates more accounts and posts negative posts and zero votes for no apparent reason to article that even though voted 4.7 avg had only 5 votes on total for long period of time.
Everyone gets the math I think.
Currently I solve it like this.
I post the article he immediately posts his whitespace rant with zero votes I delete and repost the article to reset the forum.
(Yes Sometimes needed multiple times during first hour or so) Then after day or so things calm down and people in the forum start to focus on sharing tips and try to help each other. But now I no longer have will to delete whole forum just for some useless rant since forum have some value now.
To CodeProject Guys: ": Please. Give Article authors Forum moderation rights" Thx. On every Author Blog this is normal thing.
Also there is this voting war for place on CodeProject front page where people will immediately vote you 3 just to get their articles there.
To CodeProject Guys: : Please. Let only people that give something to community (articles?) right to vote scores lower than 4. So no one will have more votes votes via zillion of empty accounts. Also your DB will be more compact this way ;D
And finally.
To CodeProject Guys: : Pls calculate and show KARMA rating of each member next to each his post by color.
Now if you vote article down your KARMA goes down. KARMA slowly regenerates. 3 days from complete low ?
I your KARMA is too low you can't post negative scores but you should still retain ability to comment things to preserve democracy and article value in the same time.
"There is always a better way"
|
|
|
|
|
I've added two articles in the last few months, both have reasonable averages.
When I published the first someone voted 3 early on (despite achieveing a decent average), dropping it from the "latest best picks". Once that happens, and and it leaves the latest 10 articles list it disappears below the waves. This is all a biot disheartening, especially given the effort that goes into them. Your not the 1st person to mentional the tactical voting scenario, here, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter.
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the thing that bugs me most about article voting. It works well enough in the long run, but an early low vote will pretty much limit your exposure.
I've recommended previously that all articles should start out with a vote of 3 (weight e.g about gold member - needs to be tested).
This could be retroactively applied to all articles even without updating the database, and would reduce the impact of the initial votes.
|
|
|
|
|
First, this is not the place to suggest changes to the site (there's a forum for that).
Second, welcome to my own personal hell. There's really nothing you can do about the univoters. When the vote a 1 or 2, they have to give a reason. If their reason is obviously garbage, you can go to the site bugs/suggestions forum and ask for the offending vote to be removed, or take other measures to have the post removed by osmosis.
Third, deleting the article and resubmitting taxes the system. Don't do it - it's pointless.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
Ladislav Nevery wrote: he doesn't like the way I format source code
I get that too; I shrug it off.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: delete and repost
Don't do that or I'll start 1-voting you. 
Users are welcome to vote any way they like. You are welcome to "vote to remove" their post.
What might be better is if the author could choose whether or not to allow voting on the article. Most of us don't write articles to get a good rating.
|
|
|
|
|
I will always would wanna have voting on my articles. Good or bad.
But the Thing is that current voting system is not democratic to articles that will never have large amount of views/votes due to target audience being small.
Since one guy with few fake accounts easily sinks article that had good rating for over 2 years.
For things like "white-space formatting".
Other than that I don't care about overall voting and I post articles if I feel that it may help people. If the article is over 4 than I feel it's probably useful to people and if not then I will remove it myself
Anyway I just tried to propose solution to make system better.
"There is always a better way"
|
|
|
|
|
Ladislav Nevery wrote: not democratic
Sure it is.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: one guy with few fake accounts easily sinks
Or elevates -- why don't you make more memberships and up-vote your articles? Make thirteen (if I recall correctly) and vote the offending votes into oblivion.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: make system better
It can't be done.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: What might be better is if the author could choose whether or not to allow voting on the article
Maybe what we need is to give an author a choice for the minimum rep required for voting, say:
- voter needs to be at least gold author (intended for extensive or advanced articles)
- voter needs to be at least silver author (intermediate)
- voter needs to be at least bronze author (beginner's article)
- everyone can vote
where probably the minimum could not be set higher than the author's own color.
and maybe we want author or authority, not just author for the voter's color.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: minimum could not be set higher than the author's own color
I would almost say that only members of the author's level and above can vote on the article.
|
|
|
|
|
isn't that what I said? it sure is what I meant to say.
|
|
|
|
|
At first I thought not, but after I posted it, I figured it was.
I wouldn't disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I wouldn't disagree with you.
Aha, now I have something to put on my wall. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd never get any votes then...
.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
|
|
|
|
|
that is exactly why I always use the term "color" or "color level" 
|
|
|
|
|
Not many maybe, but they'd be 5s.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess that most of the positive votes vould normaly be from people from lover levels (students etc) since those vere seeking help in first place. and negative ones from higher levels since those can usually can make even better article.
Most of the higher levels usually ranted about formatting etc but their rant was lost in positive feedback of peopple to whose it really helped. They usually reformat it their way anyway. 
That's the reason I think system was kinda balanced when everyone could vote.
The only think I would do for start is
Disabling voting scores lower than 4 from accounts that don't have articles with at least score 4 on them. Also maybe regognizing one user using multiple accounts for voting (via cookie / ip ?).
Now the tactical voting can be solved be solved by calculating score from votes older than 24h ? This way articles vould have 24h time to find audience.
"There is always a better way"
|
|
|
|
|
Ladislav Nevery wrote: higher levels since those can usually can make even better article.
It is hoped that gold+ members can distinguish sub-optimal but non-dangerous code from dangerous code.
If the code presented is dangerous, then sure, vote 1. But if it's OK, but I can do better, then a 1 may not be in order.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: higher levels usually ranted about formatting
I've had it from both ends, I'm pretty sure mostly from the bottom end of the spectrum.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: They usually reformat it their way anyway
Exactly.
Ladislav Nevery wrote: regognizing one user using multiple accounts
I doubt that's possible.
All in all, I don't really care about the rating.
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow that is not very democratic.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there is a need, given recent discussions, and a couple of requests, for a group to be set up.
Invitations freely given.
Name : "My Big Fat Geek Kitchen"
Subject : Curry, Chilli and other Spicy Food Recipes.
Rules : Open to all, but format to be observed...
(Overview, Ingredients, Equipment, Method, Observations).
Header Rule : Opening Thread of any Recipe must begin with Vegetarian, Chicken, Beef etc then whether it is a curry or whatever else, (just to make scanning easier).
There are a lot of amateur chefs here, and we all have our fave dishes, it would be nice to have a place to share them.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: There are a lot of amateur chefs here
do you want a Kitchen? we already have a spaghetti forum! 
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: There are a lot of amateur chefs here, and we all have our fave dishes, it would be nice to have a place to share them.
I think this is what you are looking for: Mumsnet[^]
me, me, me
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
Larry Niven
|
|
|
|
|
GFY! 
We have had several Curry Threads recently, and there was a chilli thread not so long ago, and I have just been asked about setting up a group, so I thought, "Why not?".
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: We have had several Curry Threads recently, and there was a chilli thread not so long ago, and I have just been asked about setting up a group, so I thought, "Why not?".
Was only kidding: good idea. Love anything that stings both ends though preferably not at the same time...
me, me, me
"The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!"
Larry Niven
|
|
|
|
|
digital man wrote: stings both ends
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
