|
See the instructions at the bottom of the page.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Richard...
|
|
|
|
|
This closed question: [^] appears to be the first question on QA asked by this OP.
Right now, the question is showing only one vote of #1.
While I felt the question was "borderline," I did ask the OP in a comment if this was a WinForms question, and asked them what they had tried. If they had responded appropriately, I would have given them some ideas about how to get going on this.
It seems reasonable to me to have some time-span of "grace" ... perhaps 24 hours ? ... before a question is closed, possibly taking into account the "newcomer" status of the OP. And, yes, of course, a "worst case" will soon show up whose behavior cries out for "no mercy."
thanks, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
With respect I disagree about a grace period because
- Some questions just aren't appropriate
- Some questions are abusive or spam
- Some questions are duplicates
- Some questions have no hope.
These need to be removed immediately.
I think what you're after is a way to mark a question for clemency. A "I know this looks bad but we should give it a chance".
Fair enough, but it adds a level of complexity that may do more to confuse the general populace than make it easier.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Chris,
Indeed, some posts shout their need to be exterminated asap. What is obvious is that the current structure makes it far too easy to close any post.
I think the current metric for closing posts (that are not abuse, not spam, not totally whacko, not off-topic, not wrong-forum, etc.), the number of down-votes, is not serving the greater good of CP.
An idea (one of many possible) for another type of metric: a post on which a CP member with a certain "Authority" rep-level (or MVP status ?) has made a comment, or posted a solution, or voted the question above #2, should not be arbitrarily closed by a small number of down-votes.
The "bigger picture" structural issue I see is the absence of many CP MVP's from active participation in QA (for reasons that do not need re-stating), and the de facto encouragement of people to become "homework factories" in order to boost their reputations. imho, we do not create anything of value by simply providing code without comment, without an attempt to engage in dialog with the OP, without at least the attempt to educate.
Yes, I know, so easy for me to suggest ... when I don't have to sweat blood over the complex software that runs CP to implement what I suggest 
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
The software is the easy part. Modelling human psychology is the hard bit.
BillWoodruff wrote: [a] post on which a CP member with a certain "Authority" [...] has made a comment [...] should not be arbitrarily closed
This is on the TODO. It's related to the same issue where you go to answer a question but someone else has closed it while you're answering.
I'll try to kill, or at least wing, two birds with one stone.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
Glad to hear you've got those two birds in your stone-sight
One rationale I see for a "grace period" of 24 hours is that if the OP is asked to clarify their question in a comment ... let's assume they are in a time-zone that is not the same as the person who posted the comment asking for clarification ... then I think it is only fair to give the OP a chance to respond.
On a technical level, it seems to me delaying question closure for a fixed period of time after the question is posted should be possible, should not require major surgery (?).
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of just closing questionable questions there should be a possibility for the OP to improve the question after it has been closed because it's unclear or incomplete.
So instead of just plain rebuffing the OP he gets a message that those willing to help (well, at least those that looked at the question) don't think the question is phrased in way to be answered and some hints about what he could do to improve the question so he can refine and resubmit it.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been watching the ratings on Wearable Chess[^] quite closely, and I just noticed that the rating count seems to be stuck on 12.
A few hours ago it said it was a perfect 5/5, but now apparently it is a 4.87/5, which means that someone gave it a 4/5... however the rating count has not incremented to 13. I've also noticed that people have been commenting "My Vote of 5", but the count has still stayed on 12.
I could be mistaken, but I'm reporting just in case. 
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds suspiciously like a caching issue. Give it time and it will update and clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone revoted
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Aha! That explains it.  Thanks for having a look!
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
the article was deleted, so won't show up in your bookmark list.
|
|
|
|
|
where the article was delete...because i could still open and see the article. today i again book mark a url Exception handling in ASP.NET MVC (6 methods explained)[^]
the same problem i face when i click on My Bookmark link. the new article is not showing in my book mark list. i guess when we click on book mark image to make anything book mark then things is not getting book mark. i guess something wrong in the web site. please check and rectify the problem. thanks
tbhattacharjee
|
|
|
|
|
I got a notice that my tip Documenting SQL Stored Procs in C# Code[^] was edited by Deeksha Shenoy to be "made publicly available". It was already public (it was already being voted on), so why was that necessary?
I don't really care for people going in and messing with my articles unless I ask them to, or unless there's some sort of obvious markup problem.
".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
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like she just did a quick grammar sweep (only one word was changed) and fixed a few .Net's to .NET. From an editor perspective, sometimes doing a quick edit gives you a sense of accomplishment that helps fuel you to edit a bigger one.
But we don't want to annoy, I can tell all editors not to touch unless you ask us to.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for my comment on this... but in case it was really Quote: (only one word was changed)
Where is the rotten egg in your article, whom you are afraid? I do not find it, so be relaxed.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Lately, my answer was marked as "Pending". Ok, I was waiting... and waiting. Nothing happened. Than I refreshed the page. My answer was gone. I rewrote it: "Pending" again. Than suddenly I got a comment to my first answer. I refreshed the page and there it was, already accepted by OP - and the second shot still in pending state. How come these all together? Quite strange...
|
|
|
|
|
Your answer was trapped by the spam filter. Something you wrote made the filter think you were trying to post something you shouldn't be posting.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it appeared after all, without any change. But check for yourself Voice recorder suggestion for my website[^] and tell me what should I avoid writing...
And what about the fact that OP was able to see my answer whilst I wasn't?
If this isn't a bug...
|
|
|
|
|
When a message is trapped by the Spam filter it gets posted to a queue on the home page, until one of us with the appropriate privilege releases it. A bit of a pain I know, but the site is getting attacked lately by spammers. Take a look in the Spam and Abuse forum to see how many get picked up every day.
|
|
|
|
|
Did someone forget to push the "turbo" button on one of your servers? Every page is taking 12+ seconds to get a response from the server, and judging by this thread[^], it's been going on for over six hours.
EDIT: And, as if by magic, as soon as I post this message, the response times are back to normal. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
We've just spent the better part of an hour trying to work out what happened.
It turns out for a single sproc, there were two cached plans. One sensible, one not. The sensible plan was what was being shown in SQL Server Management studio (which has ARITHABORT = ON). Running under .NET, ARITHABORT is FALSE, and so our code was getting the other, crappy plan.
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE didn't work.
Messing with the connection object in .NET worked - but was clumsy.
Out came the hammer and I've manually changed the database default - bingo, instant fix. Except it's a band-aid so I need to ensure that the execution plan with and without ARITHABORT are both sensible.
(How on EARTH are you meant to know these things off-hand? DBA stuff can send a man insane)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, got the t-shirt.
You can use SET ARITHABORT ON inside an individual stored procedure, if you don't want to change the database or server default.
There's some good discussion of the problem on this StackExchange thread[^], and some fairly detailed information in this article[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
