|
I can't recall the last time it happened, but it was at weeks ago. If you say it should work the way I described, I'll try to remember to pay more attention the next time I do 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
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. First of all, I appreciate edits get awarded, and content-related edits should be discernible from formatting edits, as the former may be a trigger to read the material again. But having a checkbox with a default state is just wrong. Whatever the default value is, it will be bad.
If we must have user intervention here, it should be explicit, without any default. Yes that means an extra step when done editing. Some kind of "is this a major or a minor edit?" dialog.
However, we really should have that automated. CP has the old text and the new text, how hard can it be to decide whether the edit is mostly content-related or not? any attempt to automate is bound to be better than having a checkbox, a default, and most likely a majority of editors not interested in it.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: However, we really should have that automated. CP has the old text and the new text, how hard can it be to decide whether the edit is mostly content-related or not? any attempt to automate is bound to be better than having a checkbox, a default, and most likely a majority of editors not interested in it.
I agree.
I cannot see the point of the CheckBox at all.
I genuinely try to remember to check it if I have altered a single letter typo but sometimes forget. In any event, as I understand it, I wouldn't get points for that change anyway since it would be less than a 10% change.
So if it is possible to calculate a 10% change, the CheckBox is redundant.
Or have I, as usual, missed the point of the CheckBox?
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Minute wrote: So if it is possible to calculate a 10% change, the CheckBox is redundant.
Or have I, as usual, missed the point of the CheckBox?
Check.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
They could always take the WinZip approach and have 2 buttons: "Submit Minor Edit" and "Submit Major Edit". And swap their positions each time.
|
|
|
|
|
I once suggested that, however I don't think it would be a real improvement; I'm afraid a lot of users would soon figure it doesn't matter much which of those two buttons gets clicked...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
|
|
|
|
|
Better to assume a 50% split rather than 100% minor or 100% major.
|
|
|
|
|
I just posted an answer in the C# forum, and when I went to look at the Recent Reputatio Points List, I saw that I got 10 points for the answer, but then -1 point for posting a general forum message:
12 Jan 2011 7:45 AM Post a General Forum Message Debator Forum Message -1 <br />
12 Jan 2011 7:45 AM Post a Programming Forum Answer Authority Forum Message Re: .NET framework required for the C# program 10
Is that a bug or as intended?
".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
|
|
|
|
|
The Programming Discussions submenu under the Q&A main menu should be on its own. The reason being is clicking on the Q&A link does not offer a way to get to there from the page that pops up.
The General FAQ submenu under Help! should be the first one since that is the default page for the main menu. What is 'The Code Project'? should be second from the bottom, next to About Us, since they're related.
|
|
|
|
|
The page would become too wide. I'm struggling as it is to fit everything in. OPen to suggestions though!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with Q&A and Discussions? I know you're supposed to expand acronyms on first use and all, but for a menu item, it should be fine. Programming Discussions is not true since the majority are programming, but certainly not all.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, the Quick Answers submenu is also wrong since it's both Questions and Answers under there.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the 'Site Bugs / Suggestions forum' should be renamed as the ' General Forum for moaning about Reputation Points '. In order to give it a more accurate title.
If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's a bug or a suggestion it goes in here.
Personally I appreciate the feedback and sleuthing I get. It beats the alternative.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've always said that you need a good sluething every once in a while. It cleans out the upper intestines...
".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 logged in with a rep score of 6,077 and I go back about 1.5 hours later and it is 6,065. I don't see any new down votes. Is the scoring system still out of whack?
|
|
|
|
|
That usually indicates someone with moderate rep points down-voted a message or answer.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
But I don't see in my recent reputation history that being the case. However, if you look at my history I received 20 points for someone (1 vote mind you) up voting my thread. see here[^]
I love the 20 points but I think that that 1 up vote = 20 points is a little off. What's your take?
[EDIT] Just realized that you can only see your own rep history. 
|
|
|
|
|
Then you should read my replies in the Features thread (just below this one)...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Just read it.
I know that this great website can't be perfect. However, I think the rep score system (and voting) should be; other wise, what's the point in having it if it isn't accurate?
|
|
|
|
|
Look at it this way - you get more rep points for pointing out apparent flaws in the rep points system. The system feeds on itself. 
".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 exactly why I've put everything else on hold to get this sorted.
Our reputation system isn't static, nor was it baked in when we started this 10 years ago. As we refine it and add more ways to reward members there will be changes. Our goal is to ensure that changes are predictable and positive. The current bug will get squashed and then the rep recalc will go ahead.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know - you should come up with some great big gawdy flashing banner that says "REPUTATION POINTS RECALC IS UNDERWAY. Please wait 48 hours before posting messages about it in the Bugs/Suggestions forum."
Put this banner at the top of the profile pages, the lounge, and the bugs/suggestions forum.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
As always...thanks. I won't bitch and complain about the issue anymore...at least for today.
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] should explain you the same.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
