|
I think they are using a single non-printable character.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: single non-printable character.
Looking at the source of a post for user 3313989[^] it's empty.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
They don't need a username to sign up, but do need a username to post.
Clearly my code isn't listening to what I'm telling it to do. 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Clearly my code isn't listening to what I'm telling it to do
"that's wierd" says the programmer 
rotfl. here is a new example of anonymous user[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You and I must have been taught by the same teacher. Someday I'll rip his head off. 
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
I agree with you that my argument is useless. [Red Stateler]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris, Hi All,
As we already encountered sometimes, some people create - voluntarily or not - messages with empty messages. This implies the post to be "unclickable", and quite unreadable. also, there's still the way of editing the page' source and get the link to get it openend again, but we shouln't have to do that.
to counter this, couldn't we (couldn't you Chris) add the icon placed before the subject into to <a></a> link tag ?
thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, he may also put something like [Untitled] if it's got no title.
------------------------------
"The Soapbox has been so ..."
|
|
|
|
|
The system shouldn't allow empty titles but obviously we've got a bug or an exploit or both.
To save me time hunting can you please send me a link to an offending message?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
hum, i had one, but i asked the OP to modify his message and set a title, which is what he did...
BTW, here is the post[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Messages without subject like here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sucks when I was no where near to that post before.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but a necessary evil to stop the kiddies abusing the system.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Yes, but a necessary evil to stop the kiddies abusing the system.
Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.Prakash wrote: Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
Yeah, if Smitha votes on a message, then I can't. Pity really. Maybe in CP v2 they'll fix this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system.
Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris,
Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list
|
|
|
|
|
That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue. Most kidiot's won't be willing to wait years to pull their pranks, and if the requirement is that both accounts are really long term it'd solve the problem of someone stuffing a ballot by creating a new account and voting with it before the old one.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
dan neely wrote: That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
That's an excellent idea. May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
But in this case, a poster with query got solved by someone, can not vote to reply he statisfied with. Obviously, he would/not be a valid member to vote.
There are many users, who post only when they have queries. And they hardly got to this figure.
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
Are u sure??
CP says: Bronze is awarded at the beginning of the first 500 messages posted instead of the end.
L.W.C. Nirosh.
Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
|
|
|
|
|
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote: May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
This will ensure that you will see 500 crap posts all over CP.
-Prakash
|
|
|
|
|
or create a link where a user can ask for voting permission and moderators can accept or deny his request according to his repo on boards
the link is only available only the user passes certain criteria (like should be a gold member or posted at least some minimum number of messages / articles
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
