|
This is by design[^] (and those who answer now have their name shown)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I'm fine with that. Thanks 
"I'm neither for nor against, on the contrary." John Middle
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea but now spammers can post anonymously and there is not a way of reporting the user.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
If that turns out to be an issue we'll find a solution
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It's an issue:
 No way to find out who posted it, so the spammer cannot be reported.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Hover over the report "shield" and let me know if that helps.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a "shield", just a flag:
And "hover" is an entertaining problem on a tablet! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
After you report you get to see who you reported.
OriginalGriff wrote: And "hover" is an entertaining problem on a tablet
Try tapping. (He says, having not tested it, and blindly hoping and praying).
If it doesn't work as expected* then I'll fix.
*CodeProject reserves the right to reject your reality and replace it with one of their choosing.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll try it - but it'll have to wait for spam to arrive. Shouldn't be long...
I'll let you know how it goes on PC, WookieTab, and Android, if I can.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It is already an issue, as shown in Spam in QA - closed[^].
And it also means we cannot check when someone reposts the same question multiple times, or for other reasons we may wish to look at their previous posts.
|
|
|
|
|
In my point of view, it is an issue.
I used to use the member profile and questions history to detect many kind of abuses like:
- Repost of questions.
- Vampires: "Why I get error with 'IF' in my C program" after they already asked 96 questions.
- Spammers
- Member of the day: hint that it is homework
...
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Let me get this straight, MY name as a question answerer is being displayed but the posters name is not being displayed?
Oh no it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
The person who asks the question is not mentioned in the question. The person who takes the time to answer is question is shown for credit where credit is due.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I would say the instance where a high-rep member is put off asking a question is a very rare edge case, and if they are that concerned they could simply create a new account. However this change affects things that aren't edge cases. How do we report spammers? How do we know if something is a repost? More importantly...and maybe this is just me  but if I help a member on more than one occasion and it turns out to be pointless as they simply repost, don't respond to clarification, reply your advice "doesn't work" or so on then I'll not respond to that person in the future. At the end of the day I'm using my own time to help someone and if that is pointless then it's something I don't want to waste time doing.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: How do we report spammers
Hover over the "reported" shield after a report to get access to the user's profile.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: How do we know if something is a repost?
That's an issue that exists outside of users reposting questions. We need a general solution to this so that someone who posts a question that's already posted can be pointed to the original question.
F-ES Sitecore wrote: it turns out to be pointless as they simply repost, don't respond to clarification, reply your advice "doesn't work" or so on then I'll not respond to that person in the future
This is a good point and shouldn't rely on a user's name. Maybe what we do is show the number of black marks against a user. Or ban them altogether?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
+1 for "this is a problem".
At an absolute minimum, the "protectors" need to be able to see the user so they can report spammers.
And I'd also echo Pete's reply to your post: I'm not not asking questions because I don't want to seem dumb; I'm not asking questions because I can typically find the answer myself.
I suspect all high-rep members have more experience and better Google-fu, and therefore are significantly less likely to need to ask a question.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
If I ask for clarification and the poster replies with a comment I will know who it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Because they always reply to an RFC, right?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly not always, but i just got a reply and now I know who it is.
Well, not really, I know what account it was.
|
|
|
|
|
In other cases it may not be clear whether a comment (added to a solution for example) is from OP or someone else.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
+ 1 to the "maybe not such a good idea" opinion.
I agree with most of the arguments given in the answers above.
Not only from the point of view of a protector with spam and so on, but as user as @FEs-Sitecore pointed out.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I thought of asking a question (more like an RFC) but I refrained because I didn't want to bother people while I could simply search some more on the web - and then I found the answer I was looking for.
On my side, wording a question in such a way that it is understandable and will guide the answerers to what I need is a non trivial activity - I hate wasting people's time with poorly worded questions like many in the QA.
On the side of the other users, asking a question I'm directly asking for their time, while I could use mine and resort to direct request only if everything fails or my doubt is too deep.
It could be interesting to make the anonimity of the question a selectable feature, and only by high rep users.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Making the anonymity optional would be self-defeating, unfortunately. It either needs to be a "let's let the question stand on its own merits" or "let's identify everyone posting".
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Will you be removing Q&A Questions from users profiles as well?
<sarcasm>At the moment I can see Griffs extremely embarrassing questions there.</sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
|
So how do I find out what other questions and such a poster has posted to see what sorts of problems he's had and also what he means by "Thanks to Richard I was able to go a little further in the process ... " ?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
