|
The gray line is still here.
|
|
|
|
|
I have edited the Tags[^] a couple of times to merge tags, fix spellings, use capitalization more consistently, and so on. It would be useful if a deleted tag could be restored, because it is sometimes better than the one which is currently in use. This would allow articles with the other tag to be merged into it, after which the less desirable tag could be deleted. Also, various users with Silver status can modify tags, and I'm not sure if the permission should be that broad.
modified 16-Jul-22 14:54pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I received two emails, apparently for one reply to a comment of mine. Time stamps identical, similar but not identical content.
One has subject "CodeProject | A reply was posted to your comment", the other "CodeProject | CodeProject A comment has been added".
If it's any help I can forward the emails or a "view source".
The thread in question is Matching list of words but not when found inside longer words[^] and the double emails are from OP's first reply to my comment.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
It's not new - it's a known bug which was introduced almost a month ago:
Bugs and Suggestions[^]
Bugs and Suggestions[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The new twist is that it isn't a notification of my own post, and also the two are not identical.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Already mentioned in the first reply[^] to one of the threads. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
As Richard said:
Comments from others get double notification (red square and mail)
Own comments get single notification (red square and mail)
Problem appeared a month ago.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah,
So codeproject.com needs to decide what kind of site it wants to be. A while back a user calling himself k0walski2k [^] called out a popular member for plagiarism. The codeproject moderation team punished him and closed his account[^]. The claims from the other member were also deleted where he said he personally reverse engineered these undocumented Microsoft structures[^].
I saw it with my own eyeballs, the other member was saying right here on the codeproject forums that he himself had researched and produced one of the most notorious offensive red team tools.
For future reference both the potential plagiarist and codeproject site should investigate the claims[^] before protecting the plagiarist.
Maybe we should instead have Vice or Wired investigative journalists look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
A member, k0walski2k, had their account closed based on community reports of spamming (not plagiarism as far as I can see). This member claims to be Benjamin Delpy. And because of this we should investigate an unsubstantiated claim about a person's identity before protecting this plagiarist. Or is it the spammer? And by protecting you mean allowing it to be closed?
I'm so confused.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: community reports of spamming
No, the way forum moderation is handled everyone is marked as 'spam' to quicken the member deletion. There was no spam involved.
The visitor accused a popular member (article author) of using someone else's research work. There were some inappropriate words exchanged between the two site members. There was no spam involved.
I don't come and post here in your Suggestions forum unless I think it's important.
|
|
|
|
|
I saw inappropriate words from k0walski2k but not from whom he was accusing of plagiarism. His account was flagged for abuse, not spamming. When it didn't get closed on that basis, it reappeared in the list of still alive spammers, even though it wasn't actually a spam account.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah,
I know why the discussion entered moderation. It was because the words were becoming heated. But then k0walski2k was added to the Still alive spammers[^] list which always results in member deletion.
I did not see anything that warranted an account termination. I've seen far worse arguments in the Lounge.
I normally wouldn't get involved but when I saw the article author make the claim, I couldn't let that slide. The site visitor had every right to question about original research. k0walski2k should also be allowed to ask about adding other peoples names to the project, they deserve recognition.
He was also right to be angry.
|
|
|
|
|
Given that this is the Site Bugs and Suggestions board, what is your suggestion?
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
I think fast-tracking accounts off the site is useful for certain scenarios. But putting members on a 'Spammers' list because they had a disagreement is inaccurate and unfair. We need to treat everyone equally, new members should be treated with the same respect as the veterans. When two members are having a disagreement we should look carefully at both sides.
The site should rely on each other, we are all friends. Two members spoke up early to indicate what we already knew.
|
|
|
|
|
So, is that not a conversation for the lounge rather than the suggestions part? It's hard to see what Chris and co can do that won't open the site up on the spam front, so unless you have an idea I can't see, this isn't the right forum.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm interpreting this as "Send all complaints to /dev/null". 
|
|
|
|
|
When you saw that the account was in a Spam list, you could have added a comment in the thread to challenge it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
This why I said we are all friends and should rely on each other. Two members reached out into that thread in an attempt to intervene. But no moderators responded.
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to call a moderator's attention to a forum message with the @name construct.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah,
That was also done[^] by Nelek to intervene. Unfortunately there was no response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I have reported the account while going through some of the "Still alives" because I forgot about your and Bruno's comments the first time.
I could track the reportings down to the first Still alive spammers 1/2[^] when he was included.
And found the first reported[^]
and the third one[^]
but could not find the message in which he was originally reported.
The "Still alive" is an automated list generated by some code created by OG. Its biggest fault is, that to avoid such a situation, the link to the "to be checked" user has to be deleted in its previous appearances.
The only thing I can do right now is to ask you, that the next time you summon me too and I will delete the links to give more time to the staff to dig in the situation. I should have done it this time when I summoned Sean, I didn't expect the message to go unnoticed.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Nelek,
That was very useful feedback. I can see how the mistake was made.
I didn't want to air all this out in public. The discrete method of dropping hints wasn't working. And to make matters worse all the posts by those two members were deleted. So I think only a few of us know what this thread is about.
I appreciate your support.
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: Thank you Nelek,
You are welcome.
Randor wrote: That was very useful feedback.
Glad if it helped.
Randor wrote: So I think only a few of us know what this thread is about.
To be honest... I think I didn't read the original messages, but I do remembered your (and Bruno's) hints when I saw this thread.
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.
modified 15-Jul-22 16:41pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: I think I didn't read the original messages, but I do remembered your (and Bruno's) hints
Thanks for being honest in this discussion.
How common is it for the moderations team to vote members off the site without actually seeing the transgression? What criteria did you use when you made your decision? And would it have helped if you could see those posts?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
