|
It's the word 'collectively' that gives me pause. This is your show, but personally I would suspect that group-think begins if you all get in a meeting and try to come to a consensus. All I'm saying is, let each editor get a number of points to award as he/she wants. Or don't you think that would work?
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: . Or don't you think that would work?
I think it would be wildly inconsistent between editors and which side of the bed they got up on, as well as article load.
The more voters, the smoother the data.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Yes, it's possible that an editor might overlook some articles, but by forcing the selection of only a single article, you're overlooking a lot of articles. You can still keep the present system's net result: the article with the most editor points is the editor's choice.
The editor's choice is selected randomly whenever an editor comes across an article that just rocks. Just to make certain I understand you, you're suggesting instead of picking 1 random article every so often, editors should "award" as many articles as they see fit, with the award level varying based on their overall feel, and the most awarded article is the editor's choice for that day/week/month etc. Is that it?
My feeling would be we provide the editors with some radio buttons for each article:
Award Bonus points: o 100 o 250 o 500 o 750 o 1000
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
You left out the '0' points, but yes, that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
I lost track of this thread, sorry for that.
The issues you raise are valid indeed.
However, I would turn those points into immediate stimuli, like so:
- have the wizard judge several aspects of the entry, and award points accordingly.
- here are some criteria:
number of downloadables, of images, of code snippets, of links to other CP material, of links to external material;
presence of table-of-content, of history, of acknowledgements, ...;
- This variable number of points would replace the constant 100 you now award.
The bonus CP gets from it is people better realize what they could do to create better articles, and when they try they get an immediate reward. Yes I know this deals mostly with form, not intellectual content, but that remains left to the readers and their votes.
|
|
|
|
|
That would definitely filter out some of the bottom dwellers, but I strongly feel that someone like Sacah Barber who spent a month on an article would tell you he doesn't care how many downloads or tables of content an article has, if it's crap it's crap.
The value of an article is what members feel the value is. No more, no less.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: someone like Sacah Barber who...
Yeah, I know, he can't be helped, no matter what you do he will deliver a couple of quality articles a month.
I was only pointing out you probably could improve the average article quality by providing a small but immediate award to authors taking care of those form aspects you consider important.
|
|
|
|
|
Just had a quick look at the who's who page and I immediately noticed that David Cunningham[^] has an Author rep of -60.
No articles or tips with any votes
Dave
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn) Why are you using VB6? Do you hate yourself? (Christian Graus)
|
|
|
|
|
DaveyM69 wrote: Just had a quick look at the who's who page and I immediately noticed that David Cunningham[^] has an Author rep of -60.
The -60 does not worry me as much as the fact that Dave has not posted here since April 2009! Chris, you gotta do something about that!
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like a bug. I'll add it to the list. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a thought and maybe it already has been addressed or used to be this way and was changed (probably for a good reason)...so consider this more of a discussion rather than a suggestion.
first, let me say that CP's search seems to be the best forum search I've seen in a long time. Usually, with programming forums, it is easier to search the forum with Google rather than the built in search. Kudos to CP for that.
but it seems to me that if the search results were somewhat date sorted before relevance sorted would make it slightly better...
example, the following search:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Search.aspx?fid=0&kw=fantasy+baseball[^]
before I posted in the lounge resulted in the 2003 thread as the first result. I almost replied to it until I noticed the date.
I was thinking it would be nice to have results sorted by some very rough date order (perhaps by year)? And of course a simple note at the top of the above search result that says "No results from 2010" or something to that effect would be useful.
The reasoning is that many searches are for time sensitive subjects and it doesn't do any good to the person searching to see results from 7 years ago. Of course, on the other hand, this is a programming forum and many times those 7yo results are just as useful as if it were posted yesterday. So I guess its kinda a wash on that one.
thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
I have thought about this also. Example (may not be real): Working with SQL 2008 I find that the answers to SQL 2000 is good for 2000 but will not work for 2008 thus an answer from 2005 does not always help.
I am not saying what is here is bad as I could not even get a result this if I tried.
Just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
One of the CP user posted one Q here: Some Question[^]
Code tag is not working properly. I tried couple of times... Preview shows all fine but when i update, it adds xmlns:asp="#unknown" !
At times, i had encountered that HTML does not work properly in it.
|
|
|
|
|
The sample markup was not HTML encoded within the PRE tags.
Copying the code, then cleaning out the code block including the PRE blocks and just re-pasting it fixes it all up. (assuming you are using a decent browser with javascript enabled)
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Got it!
looks like couple of more tried to fix that and failed until you made it look fine!
|
|
|
|
|
Where is the survey of the week? On the mainpage of Codeproject, when I scroll down, I see the Industry news-panel, an ad and that's it. No survey...
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
I was about to post that morning my time but then I thought it is sunday night in canada so
hamsters might be asleep. I think it is time to wake them up
"I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong." - Samuel Goldwyn
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but I don't see any survey at all, not this week's, not the last week's survey.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
It shows only this week's survey on the main page. All the past surveys are here[^]
Maybe there is no survey this week, that's why it is not showing.
"I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong." - Samuel Goldwyn
|
|
|
|
|
HimanshuJoshi wrote: It shows only this week's survey on the main page.
Yes, I know. i just meant, that if they just had forgotten to put up a new one, there should be at least last week's survey still be visible. Maybe Chris Maunder ran out of suggestions for questions?
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
Smithers-Jones wrote: Maybe Chris Maunder ran out of suggestions for questions?
that's the only explanation we have right now
"I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong." - Samuel Goldwyn
|
|
|
|
|
It is back.
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Elina.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank Jeff on that
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it!
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Jeff.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
|
|
|
|