|
This post here[^] in GIT provides the link for downloading MP3 songs.
I think it violates copyright materials.
Anyone with higher power, care to take care or modify the post.
I am being ridiculed for suggesting that it would advoate piracy.
Please clarify.
Edit: OP has removed it.So no issues.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
modified on Monday, January 24, 2011 5:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
In the past I (and others) have suggested an option that members can select in their settings: Send me an email when any of my bookmarked articles gets updated.
Another possibility is: Send me an email when an article I have voted on gets updated.
This second option will be valuable when you vote on an article that has some bugs or other problems; when it's updated with corrections, you would like to be able to give it a higher vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I'll add that to the notes on that item.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
In my reputation history, I see 4 of these in a row:
23 Jan 2011 3:29 AM Post a General Forum Message (undo) Debator Forum Message -1
23 Jan 2011 3:29 AM Post a General Forum Message (undo) Debator Forum Message -1
23 Jan 2011 3:29 AM Post a General Forum Message (undo) Debator Forum Message -1
23 Jan 2011 3:29 AM Post a General Forum Message (undo) Debator Forum Message -1
I don't remember deleting any of my messages. And I'm pretty sure I was asleep by 1AM (these actions were at 3:29AM).
EDIT: Resolved. See here.
|
|
|
|
|
I had 1 of those a while back and I couldn't figure out what it was for.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you guys are so devoted to the site, that you "sleep-post".
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of mine, it happened while I was in the middle of a meeting so that's entirely possible.
|
|
|
|
|
I've just worked it out.
I just approved a Tip/Trick and got an 'undo -1' rep update because I had a message on it.
As all messages get removed when an item gets approved, you lose the point you gained for that message.
This doesn't seem right to me. I realize that sometimes threads on articles etc. can be about other things but mostly they are about helping the author, so maybe they should be transferred over to organizer or something, rather than being lost. Or maybe messages on unpublished items should be credited to organizer, or editor from the get go and not removed on approval.
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!
modified on Sunday, January 23, 2011 5:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
We wipe votes and messages posted on pending articles in order to give newly posted articles a fresh start.
If a member posts a message then deletes it we remove the points, and if we ever need to do a reputation recalc then when we add points for posted messages we don't count deleted messages. This also counts for when a message you post gets voted off the island. It just disappears.
However, if a message is removed as part of the article approval process then it, unfortunately, falls into the same bucket. I guess what we could do is mark the message as "suspended" (meaning it won't appear) and then in rep recalcs add points for suspended message - though this seems like it's bending logic a little.
Votes are another issue: we remove votes on pending articles for the same reason but don't have the concept of a suspended vote. It's there or it's not. Hence, having a "it was there but it's no longer visible" status would require some major reworking.
I'm trying to find a good balance in these things but these odd cases brought about by odd requirements can add serious complexity. I personally don't care if I lose a few points here or there because as an above-gold level member I already have a ton and I'm not approving or commenting articles for points (since I get most of my points from articles and answers) - I'm doing it to help others.
I know this isn't exactly motivating to others, though so I'll keep thinking.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We wipe votes and messages posted on pending articles in order to give newly posted articles a fresh start.
I understand and agree with that. It is the only fair way to do it.
Chris Maunder wrote: If a member posts a message then deletes it we remove the points, and if we ever need to do a reputation recalc then when we add points for posted messages we don't count deleted messages. This also counts for when a message you post gets voted off the island. It just disappears.
Both of those situations are appropriate.
Chris Maunder wrote: Votes are another issue: we remove votes on pending articles for the same reason but don't have the concept of a suspended vote. It's there or it's not. Hence, having a "it was there but it's no longer visible" status would require some major reworking.
Until you implement the 'approval requiring more than one confirmation' scheme that you were talking about a few days ago, it seems to me that having voting on unapproved articles is pointless (no pun intended  ). Even when/if that comes into being, unless it is going to be points based, that would still apply. Therefore, unless it would involve a lot of work, remove the voting from unapproved articles.
Chris Maunder wrote: I personally don't care if I lose a few points here or there because as an above-gold level member I already have a ton and I'm not approving or commenting articles for points
The same applies to me but if points are awarded it just seems unfair to remove them when the item has not disappeared as in the other cases you mention. It is still there, just in a different place. It's a little analogous to someone posting a VB question in the C# forum. If the thread gets moved, do those who have contributed lose points?
Because of this sense of unfairness I almost think that points should not be awarded for anything on unapproved items. As you rightly say, though, that isn't very motivational.
Good luck with your cogitations.
I'm glad it's you and not me.
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!
|
|
|
|
|
I've held off disabling voting for pending articles because I founds it useful for the editors to be guided by what the members think about articles when it comes time to deciding whether to fix or remove permanently.
The comments, however, are often more than adequate so maybe it's time.
That does solve half the issue neatly.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
When an article is in the approval stage, voting without a comment makes no sense whatsoever. The whole idea of the approval stage is to help members write good articles. Even if you're voting 5, tell the author why - good explanation, logical treatment, helpful demo, practical example, nice code, whatever. Or maybe everything is good except for one thing that was a bit lacking. Voting 5 for an approval stage article is like offering motivation, to write more.
I also like the idea of requiring some number of "approval" clicks before the article is made public. I think most people here who read the "approval stage articles" give comments that are more in-depth and helpful than comments for already-approved articles, and so leaving the article in a pending state for a bit longer makes sense.
Finally, there's always the red "Report" flag if there's a serious problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with all. We've not had a chance to implement a "5 votes for live", but I've removed voting for pending articles.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I have suggested this earlier and just repeat it here:
IMO such messages should remain visible to the person that started the thread, and to the article's author, so both parties can check all suggested/requested changes have been made. As for your fresh start, you can simply hide them for everyone else (or maybe just show a "thread by XYZ removed as it belongs to an earlier version" which leaves the existence and author still visible).
Furthermore, you could disable most widgets, the messages don't need further edits/deletes/replies/votes.
If one of both parties want to continue the discussion, they could copy/paste a message and start a new thread.
And since the messages remain intact (at least to two people), so should the votes they have collected. Effort has been spent, rewards should persist.
Warning: all the above pertains to an edit of the base material, and IMO an approval is not an edit. Someone (or later a collective) approving an article does not change a thing on the views others have expressed; editing is the operation that may (or may not) invalidate previous reactions.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, my issue was not due to an article being approved. See the edit to my OP.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is because an entire thread got deleted (perhaps by Chris). Jason Carlson posted a message, "Hello", in the Lounge yesterday. His profile was linked to in a below thread and the profile appears to have been deleted. Any links to the "Hello" thread also appear to be broken, so I guess that thread was deleted too. I posted about 4 replies in that thread, so it makes sense now.
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, yes. It was a spammer and the only way to remove it properly is to remove the entire thread.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Here is how to reproduce it.
1) On some Answer, click "Add Comment";
2) Put some comment #1 and post it;
3) Immediately after, click "Add Comment" again;
4) Put some comment #2 and post it;
5) Try to edit comment #2: locate Edit icon of comment #2 and click it => edit control shows comment #1 instead of #2.
Used: Mozilla SeeMonkey v. 2.0.11, Windows XP SP3.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I think this issue already in bug list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks again.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Alain. I'll look into this.
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
