|
sounds so but will keep an eye on him. also his member type shows 'Quote: Account Type: Social Group (No members)
dont know what does it mean.
Jibesh V P
|
|
|
|
|
Another Social Group account. This guy[^] voted two articles as 5
within 2 minutes. And I can't believe that he read this article[^] within 2 minutes (he did according to the comment activity).
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for considering my concern. Message is now removed, but what about his voting...it is still there. Request you to remove it, if possible.
Cheers by,
Anand Ranjan
|
|
|
|
|
I just voted 5 articles 5 in less than a minute. And yes, I did read them - I read them all and then came back later on to vote for them. It's entirely possible that this is what the user did.
|
|
|
|
|
'You are the Man' 
Cheers by,
Anand Ranjan
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, they were a series of articles so I thought I'd finish them before I voted for them.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to do the same when moderating - open them all in separate tabs, read them once and order the tabs by what I want to reply (good / bad / needs work) then leave it a while and do a quick revisit before actually voting / commenting. I don't like to reply too quickly, I may have misinterpreted something that I catch in a revisit.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Pete and OriginalGriff for your comments, It's OK! Never feel bad about any of these things ...
Cheers by,
Anand Ranjan
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I must admit that some articles are like that, so, this kind of timing is not a sufficient reason for banning or something like that. It's better to be conservative.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
... is back again[^]; go get him people.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marked. this user name must have a LIFE BAN 'Sema-khan'
Jibesh V P
|
|
|
|
|
And gone again.
This one is like the terminator... 
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
|
|
|
|
|
"I'll be back!" 
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
 2.0.82.7292 SP6a
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should hire a terminator to get rid of this nut!
Bob Dole The internet is a great way to get on the net.
2.0.82.7292 SP6a
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: terminator
How about the team from "The Expendables"? 
|
|
|
|
|
This is the member: http://www.codeproject.com/Members/Msaya[^].
I sometimes get warned when I see especially poor questions from some member, look at the profile and see good amount of "answers" in the list. It is generally dubious, because I can imaging the quality of such answers. Nevertheless, some of such inquirers put real answers.
Not in this case. It was 15 answers. I deleted three of the as "non-answers", but later saw that some of these answers are formally self-accepted. Why? 100% of those "answers" were in reply to OP's own questions ("I found the solution"), but some are also accepted, which looks like cheating (why, again?)…
I think this is the abuse.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is a flaw in the voting system that they get points for doing this. If that was changed, we did not have to deal with these incidents and when an OP adds a solution to tell us what fixed the problem, they will not get yelled at and have their posts downvoted.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are right about the flaw, but not score calculations should be adjusted, but enabling/visibility of controls.
1) "Accept" green button should only be available to the member having some answer post from some different member. This button should not appear for the "answer" post in response to inquirer's question.
2) The above change could be applied only if answering own question is allowed. Optionally, this possibility could be closed. Even though, in some rare cases, the possibility to answer one's own question can be useful, I remember maybe 2-3 actual more or less adequate use cases, but huge number of abuses. Note that removing this possibility would not limit the functionality of the site, by the following reason: If some inquirer founds a better solution to the problem she/he asked about, this person can always post a Tips/Tricks article on this matter, and reference her/his original question post, if she/he wants such reference.
Don't you think this is logical?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, perhaps it is better/simpler to just not allow a member to post an answer to his/her own question.
That also takes care of many of the countless cases where they want to post a comment, but mistakenly post it as an answer.
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, that would be my point, too.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
true. thats the best suits to this situation.
Jibesh V P
|
|
|
|
|
This is, in my opinion, a bit tricky situation. There are many of those non-solution posts that get comments more useful as the answer itself. So reporting it would make those comments go to the limbo as well.
What I do, when I see someone doing that is to down-vote it. If it is a self-posted solution offering a solution, then nothing. But if it is a non-solution, accepted to get points and some high-rep members downvote that type of solutions it will get negative reward.
If they check, that such missuse will be punished, and that they end losing more of their precious points than they win (1 accepted = 25, one 1-vote by high member = -16, 2 = -32)... they will just stop doing it.
I think that is a very well justified use of the 1-vote.
Regards.
--------
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the non-answers sometimes have the value.
To answer to this issue, there are two things. 1) Note that first option I mentioned only restricts self-accepting the "answer", green button. It won't prevent getting votes from others. 2) Even if we restrict the post which is the answer on own question, it does not restrict the inquirer. Not only this person can add this material using "Improve question" and comments, but she/he can post a short Tip/Trick article and optionally reference the question post from this publication.
Don't you think that this will eliminate all negative consequence of the limitation?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
