|
I've been thinking something along the same lines, and we already do something along these lines in calculating the annual MVP list in that we only count points earned in the last year.
On your note, though, I was thinking of 2 years, not 2 months: You have an overall cumulative points tally, but also an "active" tally that determines your actual membership level.
I, for instance, have posted over a hundred articles and so am recognised as a legend author, but I don't feel I deserve that anymore since it's been a long time since I've posted in volume.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply  Looking forward to whatever you decide on.
Chris Maunder wrote: I, for instance, have posted over a hundred articles and so am recognised as a
legend author, but I don't feel I deserve that anymore since it's been a long
time since I've posted in volume.
I think that since these are lasting works, the points should stay. In everyone elses case but yours, if one were to leave the code project, the works would stay. It's just that they aren't participating (as defined by the items in the category). Also, for those people that write one absolutely amazing article, and then don't ever return, their author rep should reflect that one amazing article no matter what. Only the participation category should represent their lack of participation.
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
The beauty of the rep system is that it's specifically geared to provide passive income, so to speak. You post an article and get points on it, but the real points come from the bookmarks, votes and downloads on that article. Of my 230K points, only 10K came from actually posting the articles. The other 220K was earned from members appreciating my article over the years.
So, a system that only counts points earned in the last 2 years (as opposed to points earned on items posted in the last 2 years) would provide the fairness required.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
OOOOoooo, I get it now  ... thanks for clarifying.
Be The Noise
|
|
|
|
|
My own personal preference is that a member's "good works:" articles, tips/tricks/ qa answers, and their voting/benchmarking record persist.
In terms of the "participation" score: well, I've never thought about it, or even noticed it 
Legends ? Well, I think Legends should be ... forever.
Perhaps change "MVP" to "MVPY" for "MVP of the Year" ?
But, there is one "strange fruit" in the orchard of CP reputation that I do think deserves to atrophy, since so much content there seems to rot so quickly, or is actually delivered already in an indigestible state: Lounge rep. In fact, I'd like to see it completely go away, or be reset each month on the full moon ... okay make that four times a year: solstices, equinoxes
best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
Lounge Personality de jour?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just edited the content by taking the code you were trying to display, fixing it up in notepad, then pasting it directly into your message as if you'd just copy and pasted it from Visual Studio (or, in my case, Notepad). I selected "Paste as code" in the paste dialog (though it guessed this itself) and set the language as C# just to make it pretty and it seems all good.
Can you walk me through how you did it?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, you didn't need to do that.
I copied-and-pasted the code from VS to the message, selected, and clicked encode. Win7, VS 2010, IE8.
After that I selected again and clicked code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. It's an entry into the LightswLightSwitch Star Contest[^]. It's a pretty unusual contest as far as CP goes, but this is allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, thanks thatraja!
Espen Harlinn
Senior Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services
|
|
|
|
|
In a brilliantly self-referential meta-commentary: [^]
AspDotNetDev has, I believe, raised an issue the metaphysical "depth" of which is so blindingly awesome it may even eclipse, temporarily, our on-going obsession with "rep scores."
I believe in the fundamental rights of a person to have as many personalities as they need, which does not mean I don't feel compassion for someone who has multiple personalities, and believes there is something "wrong" about themself(ves); or that I don't feel compassion for those who have one (personality), and are, perhaps, haunted by a sense they are missing out.
From my point of view, as an ex-psychotherapist, if a person is troubled by who they (is) are, and wishes to change from pluralistic to singular, or versa-vice, that's a matter of personal choice. And, if they are happy with their multiple or unary personality(ies), great !
Discrimination against people with multiple personalities, expressed in such epithets as "sock-puppets," etc., are, thankfully, a form of bigotry we are now discarding in common usage; unless, of course, said "sock-puppets" are created for some insidious purpose, are not truly "organic" expressions of the Self. And, in the case of "perverse intention:" we righteously condemn said perpetrators of iniquity: yea, may their accounts be deleted.
On the technical level though, I think this comment raises an important issue for CodeProject: should there be a special registration mechanism for those who feel their "organic" multiple personalities are so distinct so unique, that each should have a separate CP account.
Which raises other technically complex issues: what if "Personality A," and "Personality B," post identical posts ? Are they then guilty of cross-posting ? What if "Personality X" demands that all personalities should have a combined reputation score ? What if "A" reports "B" to CP as an "impostor" ?
Note that even touching on the issue of "impostoring" almost demands we need a portmanteau to be added to our common technical parlance: "imposter" ?
best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
So what is the bug and/or suggestion?
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
You'll have to ask his alter-ego.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: So what is the bug and/or suggestion?
imho the possible tsunami of bug reports and/or suggestions that may occur in the future related to this issue is such an unknown, that I must regard my first post here on this issue as equivalent to the "Martian Rover" probe. An attempt to establish basic parameters.
But, in an era in which a Richard Stallman can say: "Facebook does massive surveillance. If there is a ‘like’ button in a page, Facebook knows who visited that page. And it can get IP address of the computer visiting the page even if the person is not a Facebook user. So you visit several pages that have ‘like’ button and Facebook knows that you visited all of those, even if it doesn’t really know who you are."
Is there any meaning "left" in the term, "paranoid hyper-vigilance" ?
The "suggestion" is: that we (collectively) consider the issue. fyi: I am using the pronoun "we" here to indicate the members of CP, not a hypothetical collection of personalities within one physical body, just in case the context of this thread may imply otherwise.
best, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
This makes my head hurt. Or at least it would, if it wasn't stuffed with someone's hand.
|
|
|
|
|
That is a deliciously surreal reply ! +5
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: should there be a special registration mechanism for those who feel their "organic" multiple personalities are so distinct so unique, that each should have a separate CP account
I can't see we need to provide anything different than what's already here. Each personality can and should fill out a separate sign up form.
BillWoodruff wrote: what if "Personality A," and "Personality B," post identical posts ? Are they then guilty of cross-posting ?
It depends. If they each post the same message in different forums from the same account, then that's cross posting. If they post from different accounts then it's not (psychologically) since it's two different personalities posting two messages. No different than if two people who knew each other posted separate entries.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
fair dinkum, as always, Chris !
thanks, Bill
"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones: so, is science made of facts. But, a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not, necessarily, science." Henri Poincare
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. he used the same account to reply to himself. He did not use a 2nd account there.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I don't get it.
Neither do I.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Neither do I.
Glad to hear that. I bet it's because we think at a higher intellectual level than these other guys here. 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
