|
Interesting. Thanks.
You might want (or not want) to gather and publish activity histograms: downloading, voting, publishing.
PS: and you may want to update this page on some quiet day: http://www.codeproject.com/info/MediaKit.aspx[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The simplest measure of our membership is "lots".
Or, "Not Enough" as the case may be!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
We used to cutoff to 20, but I doubled that to allow separate calculations for authors and those who answer questions in the fora.
Thanks for the bug: I'll add it to the list.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You should have chosen 21 each Chris for a total of...! 
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to suggest that article approval (on "pending" articles) require multiple approvals, say five. If it is not approved (garnering five approval votes) within a set time frame (say, one week), it is automatically deleted, and an email is sent to the author stating that not enough people approved it for publication.
The article page would show how many approval votes have been accumulated so that everyone can see what the current approval status is.
EDIT ===========
A variation of multiple votes would be maybe a points value that each article was required to meet before it was approved, with each vote being weighed by the user's reputation (like the vote weights are done now). That way, it might take 10 votes from low-rep users, but maybe only 2 or 3 from high-rep users to give the article enough points to be published.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
modified on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 5:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any accountability to article approvals? I'm wondering if more senior members of the site, perhaps including those with approval privileges, can see who approves the article. There can then be accountability among those who know what's going on and acceptable.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think knowing who approved a given article is that important.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
To clarify this - only articles that are Pending, so authors have a chance to finish their articles when they are at composing. As a mentor, I get to see articles that aren't ready for publish and they shouldn't follow the same criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
Right - only pending articles (articles that would otherwise need to be approved but that haven't been completed shouldn't even be allowed to be approved).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
What about a multiple disapprovals? Say two or three? (reports included)
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Well, in my eye, enough disapprovals to delete the pending article would not give the author a chance to fix things that were (hopefully) cited by the people doing the approving, especially if we were to use a weighted system.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: enough disapprovals to delete the pending article would not give the author a chance to fix things that were (hopefully) cited by the people doing the approving
Agree 100%
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
in the points accumulation scheme I proposed (see a message below), I think the accumulated value should be reduced when the article gets updated:
- I would divide by 2 when positive, so a change pulls it down as those points do not belong to the revised version;
- I hesitate what to do with negative accumulator values; in theory I would divide by 2 too, however that may entice the author to just start a completely new article, which may not be what CP wants. Maybe resetting to zero *and* sending an e-mail to earlier disapprovers would be better.
PS: I also think earlier comments should remain visible to their author, and the article's author, no matter what. If I offer a comment, I want to be able to check it against the revised article, and so should the article's author.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that Lounge thread is what triggered you to start this one, I'll quote from my message there[^]:
I can't but repeat my long standing comment on the approval process; I find it wrong that a single person can approve an article (while it takes several people to report it and get it removed). In my view, approval would need a number of points (say 32), where each reader can vote from -2 to +2, which gets multiplied by the voter's author+authority weight (take the "largest" color, and give it say 8 for platinum, 4 for gold, and 2 for silver if applicable). So it would take at least two platinum's full support votes to pass, and each negative vote would make it harder to pass.
ADDED: I probably would *not* display the accumulator's value (except to the author himself), so a reader does not get influenced by the points given earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought of the points thing and edited my message as you were adding this.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
which is a bit of a surprise, as I know you're not particularly fond of down voting, and this scheme takes it all the way!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm not advocating down votes - I'm advocating a points plateau that is eventually reached before the 1-week cutoff period. Down-voting could potentially force the article to be deleted before the author had a chance to improve it.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking that showing who approved an article may help, but I then realised this would make a lot of people gun shy.
Accumulation of points is a great idea. I'll add that (high) on the list.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Very good. I appreciate that, I really think it will stimulate the popularity of whole process, and reduce the number of mishaps in the article approval process.
And yeah, please don't publish the approvers, and don't publish the points (except maybe to the article's author himself); if you want to publish anything at all, just show how many people have expressed their appreciation.
A few more suggestions:
- you might want to e-mail notifications to the approvers when the not-yet-approved article gets updated by its author.
- please make sure we can change our judgement;
- don't forget to reward the approvers appropriately! (it is bad enough they loose points when their comments get removed, as I suspect).
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly think the approval should be 2 step process, having a single button is too easy to click.
Have a check box under the list of approval requirements with wording 'The Article Meets the Requirements' and the user must check this and then click the button.
Under the list of approval requirements add an additional entry which states, 'Feedback comments have been addressed where necessary'
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I would like to suggest that article approval (on "pending" articles) require multiple approvals, say five.
Done.
Please also see my blog[^] for a discussion of the changes.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Messages are automatically signed with a special member's signature based on optional signature a member can put in options.
It would be much better to make a consistent signature for comments as well.
Motivation: Messages are just fine. When later I started commenting the Questions and Answers, I noticed the signature is always the same as my member ID, not as my signature used in Messages. This is inconsistent and, to some degree, causes loss of identity. In my personal example: my full name is "Sergey A Kryukov". I've chosen member ID "SAKryukov" and added signature "Sergey A Kryukov". Using the later as a member ID would not work, because more that two members have exact same combination of names (including middle initial), and few more have the same surname and/or combination with given name.
Apparently, only the combination of full name and member ID gives good identity token; and this works well for Messages.
However, in comments to Answers people say: "Hey, SAKryukov, good call! My 5!". First, I prefer using my name, secondly, people not always can identify me directly as an author of the Article and Messages.
By same reasons, even more important to use the signature in article. How am I suppose to cite my own article, as written by SAKryukov?
Finally, this signature should called (optional) "full name" and places in first tab of "Setting".
Thank you for understanding.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the points you've rasied and they are good ones. However, comments are meant to be small comments, not big discussions, and there is a tendancy for some members to have large signatures which would very quickly overwhelm the comment layout.
The major issue you raised is one of identity, and there is an associated issue here: identity spoofing. We force members to have unique names to ensure that one member doesn't try and pass themselves off as another member to make it seem like the other member is saying things they aren't.
Can you think of a way to show a Display name in a way that makes it clear that if someone calls themselves "Sergey A Kryukov" and acts in a way that makes it seem like they are you, the casual reader will see clearly that they aren't actually you?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Cris,
1) I looks like your argument on spoofing is irrelevant. I only say that you should provide exact same display of ID/Name in Comment as in Message. If you're not afraid of spoofing for Messages, why should you do for comments? The techniques for spoofing are exactly the same. My idea is: make it 100% consistent: Comment like Messages (except for the lack of tree structure for comments).
2) In practice, big part of comments to Questions and Answers are no shorter that the Messages (and I understand that: people have arguments over value and rationale of technique).
Thank you.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
forum messages show both the account name, which is heavily spoof-protected, and the sig, which is free.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
