|
|
|
|
|
-
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
XML for Beginners[^]
was noted to be very similar to
XML Introduction[^]
from W3Schools.
A quick look and there are a lot of similarities, especially in the examples.
I will post the member if this is confirmed plagiarism.
Author[^]
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
modified 4-Mar-16 6:42am.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd agree - the examples are the same (bar a couple of minor name changes), and the later text is also copy'n'paste job from various places. In fact, almost every sentence I googled came back to W3Schools, or a quoted reference to W3Schools, even if the original is no longer there in that form.
I'd say "plagiarised".
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
gone
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 helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
gone
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 helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
10th kick applied.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
It might be a setup or not. In this case I'm tending more to not (the second question raised up two days after the first when he found out that his hard disk caused the blue screen).
I won't report the member until a setup is verified by an appropriate answer. But it can't be verified anymore because the questions has been deleted.
So posting the link here to get the user reported too is some kind of prejudgment.
From my point of view it was even wrong to report the questions because they are IT related.
|
|
|
|
|
Jochen Arndt wrote: From my point of view it was even wrong to report the questions because they are IT related.
Isn't QA confined to questions related to software development?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefèvre wrote: Isn't QA confined to questions related to software development?
Before posting I tried to find out reading the FAQs but had no success (which does not mean it isn't stated somewhere; I just did not find it).
But the mail send to the poster contains the same as sticked to the closed message:
Quote: Closed because this post is not related to software development or IT
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't post the link to get the user reported. Nor did I personally report the user (I didn't even include the link to the user account in my original post)
The point was that we have seen many such "set up" questions in QA where a sock-puppet comes along later (sometimes weeks later) with spam answers.
Hence my comment "One to keep an eye on"
The QA forum is not just about being "IT related" ... "Quick" being the clue, and "for those that code" being another. At the very least the post was off-topic for the forum (as per my next comment in the post) and the OP had made absolutely no effort to find a solution via any other means.
I do take on board the underlying point however, that many members will see a post in this forum and automatically report a member for assumed abuse. I don't, and I guess you don't either
|
|
|
|
|
CHill60 wrote: I didn't post the link to get the user reported. Nor did I personally report the user (I didn't even include the link to the user account in my original post)
I replied to koolprasad2003 who posted the member link and never thought that you reported the user.
My other comments where just my opinion about this special case. Maybe I should have put more effort into explaining why I think they were valid (but poor) questions:
The first had an accepted solution (yes, it was my solution; but that does not care for me).
The second was poor (no effort) but raised obviously by finding the final answer to the first question. There has been similar questions in QA answered and there are articles here at CP about that topic. So posting those links would have made a valid and probably helpful answer.
Overall I just want to suggest to be careful reporting here (you got that there are trigger happy members) and that not each spam friendly question is a setup. Even when such messages have spam replies you can not be absolutely sure that it is a setup by a sock puppet when there are no other indications.
Finally I think we get them all (the spammers) 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
