|
When a question is answered at Q&A it seems that the update information for the question is updated event though the question itself is not updated.
What I mean is that in the end of the question you see when the question was posted, when was it updated and a link to revision history. For example
Posted 40 mins ago Updated 5 mins ago v2
It seems that the updated info is modified based on the solution, not that the question was updated.
Could it be possible to separate these
Question posted 40 mins ago, Question updated 25 mins ago v2, Solutions updated 5 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
What if we just said "thread updated x mins ago"?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That would prevent the misunderstanding. However, personally I often come back later to questions that need clarification so from the answering point of view it would be nice to know if the question itself has been updated recently. In other words, is there some new info on it.
So I would be totally happy if the updated at time would take only updates to the question itself into account 
|
|
|
|
|
Dear CP support,
i want to ask you to delete my account. There is nothing wrong with your site, i just dont use this account anymore.
Thanks in advance.
modified 26-Sep-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
See the reply to the question below, titled "Account deletion".
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave-Kreskowiak
example: [^]
original title: Convert java to C# code
title after editing: This is not a code conversion service
I think it's fine if the title is re-edited for clarity, or corrected for misspellings, or grammar.
But, we have comments, reporting, and down-voting, with which to express opinions, or objections.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
The reason we change the title is to try and prevent other people posting their code as a Solution, in the hope that it will be converted.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: try and prevent other people posting their code as a Solution
I respectfully take exception with the idea this method is optimal, or beneficial to CP in the long run. I think re-titling may give offense, unnecessarily.
If this method is used, it allows one CP member to turn the question into a giant billboard for their opinion ... to me, that seems to contradict the pro-social "ethos" of CP QA.
There may be a chance, that, with a little feedback, the OP might come back with an acceptable version of their question.
A little wiggle-room before the OP is sent into outer darkness ? 
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I respectfully take exception with the idea this method is optimal, or beneficial to CP in the long run
I made no such claim, I merely explained why it has been done in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard, I apologize if I misconstrued your words. When I read them, I perceived the "neutral tone," and the use of the pronoun "we," to indicate you endorsed this method.
If you care to comment on whether you think this practice is a good thing, or a suboptimal, but necessary, expedient, I am all ears 
To slightly misuse a medical trope, I believe "primum non nocere" is salient here: "first do no harm."
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Bill, no apology necessary, all comments and opinions (especially yours) are welcome.
I am not sure when or who started doing this but it seemed like a reasonable idea to me, so I joined in. Part of the problem with QA some days is trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, in order to answer what we might term "genuine" questions, rather than "do my work" types.
Perhaps, if as suggested, we just use the voting buttons (consistently) it will keep everyone happy. Although maybe not those who post such questions.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I think re-titling may give offense, unnecessarily.
Offense to whom?
BillWoodruff wrote: allows one CP member to turn the question into a giant billboard for their opinion
What's stopping anyone from turning ANY post into their own opinion? I think your comment means you're looking for CP to police any changes we make instead of the current honor system it relies on.
BillWoodruff wrote: There may be a chance, that, with a little feedback, the OP might come back with an acceptable version of their question.
The question titles that are getting changed are not recent questions. They're years old questions being used by people who Google for "Convert this to that".
BillWoodruff wrote: A little wiggle-room before the OP is sent into outer darkness ?
You're making the assumption these are new QA posts. I don't touch the new posts, only the old ones.
|
|
|
|
|
You can say that in a comment and as an answer.
You can edit the question and add that in the first line as a disclaimer...
You can report it as "not a question" and make it dissapear...
There are options to deal with it.
I agree with Bill in this one, that changing the title and leaving it is not the best option we can use.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: You can say that in a comment and as an answer.
You can edit the question and add that in the first line as a disclaimer...
You can report it as "not a question" and make it dissapear...
Yes, we do all these things, but people still resurrect old questions and dump code as solutions, expecting it to be converted.
|
|
|
|
|
It takes only three or so "Not a question" reports to remove the question. Taken how active people we have, this should not be a problem.
I agree that changing the title does no good and does not prevent resurrecting old questions so the key thing would be to properly use the reporting ability. Perhaps utilizing S&A without reporting the account...
|
|
|
|
|
I think this is a good way to deal with the situation. The more people that report a bad question and have it removed, the better. Also, if enough reports aren't given, I always come along and inspect afterwards.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Simply delete the question.
People don't model their behaviour by reading an instruction. They model their behaviour by watching what's going on around them.
By keeping the place clean and focussing on ensuring we have good titles, good questions, we demonstrate to everyone asking a question what's expected. By making a point to a single person in this manner the forum looks messy, the message is ignored by those not involved, and the person to whom the message is intended probably just doesn't care anyway (about you or the forum's etiquette).
So my request is we keep the forums looking the way we want a reasonable person to view them. Clean, neat, no egos, no slapping down, just questions that can be answered and everything else trimmed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: You can say that ... as an answer.
You can edit the question and add that in the first line as a disclaimer...
Hi Nelek, Gosh, I hope that's not going to become common practice. We get enough solutions-that-are-comments, already.
imho, the only good reason to edit the title, or the body text, is to improve, and/or, clarify the question.
Perhaps, in rare cases, remove inadvertently abusive, or inappropriate, language ?
cheers, Bill
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with BW on the title change thing in Q&A. Spam reports, on the other hand ... there's nothing to sort and nowhere to sort it, even if there was a sort. For many reasons, most of which, by now, have been sited in this interminably boring thread.
But I'd also like to add another method to vote control: ignore it.
"Silence is golden".
modified 29-Aug-21 14:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You usually read all the way to the end of interminably boring threads ?
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 30-Aug-21 10:37am.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at this project: [JieJie.NET](https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5311044/JieJie-NET) . It's listed on the main page in "Just Published" section but when clicking the article it shows
This article is currently in progress. This version is not yet publicly viewable
However, as far as I can see the whole article is visible.
EDIT:
Also pasting the URL to this message seemed to result in an invalid link. I left the link as-is.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like there was a phantom composing status version of the article. Very strange. I've updated it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like the site pasted the link with Markdown formatting for some reason.
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???
|
|
|
|
|
You are subscribed! The Insider News will be sent to your inbox each day.
That's the message I see when navigating to https://www.codeproject.com/Feature/Insider/
However, I have not received a newsletter yet. I have no junk / blocked emails. Is there a setting I'm missing?
Thanks in advance!!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
