|
Come on, Johnny J., take some Windex to that crystal ball.
I did not mention such valued and respected frequent contributors to QA like Richard MacCutchan, Richard Deeming, Sasha LeFavre, Maciej Los, Afzaal Zeeshan, CHill60, Dave K., OriginalGriff, and many others ...
Because they do participate in QA. I spoke only of persons who have stopped participating in QA because of (imho) their negative experience there, and commented publicly on that.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
I was joking. Made sure to put the icon up there... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
I'm honoured to have been included in that list, but will also confess to having been guilty of a ... shall we say, less than tolerant attitude in QA from time to time.
I did actually stay away from QA ... and in fact this entire site, for sometime because of the behaviours you mention. However I grew a thicker skin, realised my own worth and came back. I've only really been fully active for the last 3 or 4 years.
I will say here and now though - if anyone catches me out being rude or insulting, please call me out on it - nicely though  .
I can only improve through knowledge and awareness.
However a certain member is completely lacking in self-awareness 
|
|
|
|
|
The problem won't be resolved until all the old programmers are retired or dead.
Us old guys are part of the pre-internet era, where you had to muscle through coding problems alone because your network of truly knowledgeable peers was quite small. Along came the internet, and we were glad that we didn't have to read endless unrelated texts to get to the solution of our problem. Google made it even simpler for us.
Overall, we developed a certain work ethic regarding coding. By habit, we look for the solution BEFORE asking for help. It's a completely different mind set nowadays, and I'm willing to bet that instructors are even suggesting getting help off the internet.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree that there may be a "generational experience" aspect to this that helps explain the negative behavior of some members.
The key thing, I suggest, is not to let those few who are socially destructive, set the "tone" for the process, and/or, drive other people away.
And, I distinguish between being "blunt" and "forceful" in comments and interactions with newcomers, from being insulting.
I have seen you give very solid technical answers in a very "blunt" way without insulting anyone, and I enjoy that aspect of your on-line persona.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I enjoy that aspect of your on-line persona.
That's not just my online persona (and that's why I walk around armed to the teeth). 
".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
|
|
|
|
|
This exact same person shat all over me in my newbie experiences. I posted this [^] question asking where to start with web development. At the time I was a seasoned Win32 and .Net developer. That was all. I have since added Android, a lot of SQL, and yes, lots of web to my resume. But at the time I didn't know where to start and how to make heads or tails of anything.
I realize in hind site how stupid my question was. Really what I wanted was for someone to explain what items like CSS, JavaScript, HTML, ASP, PHP, jQuery, etc all meant. I didn't know what I should learn because I didn't know how they tied together or where to even begin.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the reporting system lacks the nuance to address this problem, so here's what I propose.
Please send me an email (sean@codeproject.com) when you see people behaving improperly in QA -- especially if it is in the comment section (something tells me a lot of the problems occur there). I'll narrow the examples into a "Code of Conduct" we'll look at, approve, and hammer up somewhere. Someone breaks the code? Report their account and link to the question / answer where it happened.
Break the code, you get an email and a timeout (temporary de-activation). Break the code repeatedly, your account may be forfeit.
Seem fair enough?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that will work. People with technical prowess are frequently terrible when dealing with people (at least in my limited experience).
If you disable their accounts, most of the Authority accounts will get wiped out.
(there are exceptions obviously, I've noticed a couple in my time here, I'm sure everyone knows who I mean)
|
|
|
|
|
It's kinda like the elephant in the room, huh No one wants to mention him by name. But really it's just one guy, one single person behind all this unrest! I know you guys don't want to lose a high-value contributor, but you also gotta consider if he's causing more damage than he's doing good here. Also, maybe he's just a nice guy but with a not so socially compatible outer temperament. Perhaps, a few nice words from you (in private) would help here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: Also, maybe he's just a nice guy but with a not so socially compatible outer temperament.
If its the elephant Im thinking of, then, I'd offer a suggestion from working with various species of elephants - there's a cultural issue here - Ive observed that the particular herd of elephants interpret things 'quite literally' while they try and understand what it is in front of them - so they fire off a first response... once they have digested (if they can) the issue, obviously if it's too inane it remains undigestible and it cant be helped, they often propose a good answer. I think there is a nice guy/elephant there, maybe sometimes he'd like to be the elephant herd leader (we'll leave out that elephants are a matriarchal society for the purpose of this)
|
|
|
|
|
I would appreciate any effort to address this recurring negative pattern of on-line behavior in QA.
I've said this before (in posts to Suggs&Buggs): I think requiring the question poster to check off such basic key points of information about their post as (off the top-of-my-head examples):
Language: C#, C++, JavaScript, Ruby, Python, Swift, Rust, Go
OS : Windows, Mac, Linux, Android
.NET FrameWork: 2, 3, 4, 4.5
.NET Stack: WinForms, WPF, ASP, MVC
IDE : VS 2012, VS2013, VS 2015, Eclipse
before they can post the question ... would contribute to "grounding the questions" and eliminating the frequent tea-leaf reading going on to figure out what the OP is talking about. I believe that might also serve to constrain some of the off-topic sniping by responders.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
For an oiled up mankini freak, you have some cracking ideas!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton... publicly express that they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there.
Actually, I don't believe I ever said that. The reason I don't participate in QA is because of the inane questions, of which your link is a great example.
You might ask why is it inane? Because it clearly demonstrates a lack of basic programming skills and because it smells of homework. I suspect that this is a person taking a computer programming class, doesn't grok anything, and has a very simple homework example. God forbid this was a task given by his/her employer.
So I will respectfully disagree with you -- in my particular experience, the disrespectful behavior has more often than not come from the very people that have posted their question, in answer to a legitimate reply.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Personally speaking, if I was relaxing on a weekend, and someone posted a homework question, I'd do it for them. With explanations. Who am I to judge how other people pursue their academics? 
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: if I was relaxing on a weekend, and someone posted a homework question, I'd do it for them. With explanations. Who am I to judge how other people pursue their academics?
Same here, but then I get razzed by the folks here, haha.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up in my career, with those detailed replies you, Rama used to give me. They were almost like home works ! I'm still grateful to all those teachings!
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc, I apologize if I mis-characteraized your words; I do have a very clear memory of you describing why you had withdrawn from QA from years ago, but, unfortunately, I did not save a link to that statement (on the Lounge).
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I do have a very clear memory of you describing why you had withdrawn from QA from years ago
Well, your memory is probably better than mine!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
There were so many who had said similar things. Including one of the earliest members and a good friend of mine , "Toxcct"! I dont think anybody remembers him know. He was an Mvp in C++ forum.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm certainly not disagreeing with anything you wrote, if one's goal as a newcomer is to get berated by a clique, I'd say the biggest offender has gotta be Stack Overflow.
I'm not saying they're not valuable, I often find great answers on there, but the only time I'm on there is after following links from Google--I've actually given up on the idea of posting anything there myself. And this is coming from someone who's been on the net since '93 or so.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he's saying SO is pretty bad on that front and now CP is heading in that direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Could be. And if that's the case, then everybody needs to read Bill's warning.
[Edit] ...and to be honest, I hadn't read Bill's post from top to bottom, and hadn't realized (until just now) that he actually called out SO by name. I think I rest my case--he said it better than I could.
|
|
|
|
|
Knock[^]
knock
Knock
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
