|
Would it be feasible to only disallow someone from 1-voting a message less than two minutes from posting his/her last 1-vote? This would hamper/slow down the vengeful 1-voters that crop up here from time to time.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
IMO voting rights should be throttled based on the voter's reputation. Say a maximum of totalrep/10 votes (whatever value) per five minutes. That way more active CPians can still operate quasi unlimited.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
What would you say is an acceptably high reputation that would warrant unfettered voting capabilities?
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
2^20
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
| We have this in other parts of the site but not everywhere. I've opened a task to have this made consistent across the board. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Allow us to find threads with named participants, like this
john simmons / outlaw programmer,chris maunder,aspdotnet
The search would result in any thread that contained *all three* named participants.
An additional check box labeled "ALL" (and that would be checked by default), when unchecked, could be used to allow the searcher to search for any of the named users. Maybe the current search-by-user functionality could be modified without much trouble.
Just a thought...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
modified on Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: aspdotnet
Auto-complete would be nice too. 
|
|
|
|
|
LOL
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Chris doesn't seem keen on searching his millions of accounts all the time...
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: his millions of accounts
Chris Maunder 1
Chris Maunder 2
Chris Maunder 3
Chris Maunder 4
Chris Maunder 5
Chris Maunder 6
Chris Maunder 7
Chris Maunder ...
Chris Maunder 2,352,335
So Chris is trying to jack up the member count, eh? 
And if there are performance concerns, they can be gotten around. Would only need to select the top 10 accounts when performing an auto complete.
|
|
|
|
|
aspdotnetdev wrote: Would only need to select the top 10 accounts
I've had such discussion with Chris about a week ago! See here[^].
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
I'll ask Dmitry, our resident Genius about how practical this would be. The issue, as I see it, is you would have to get a list of the intersection of all threads in which the users participated in by getting a list of all messages the users entered, so we can be talking tens of thousands of records with no simple way to index the results. The poor database will get the grumps.
Anyway, we'll take a look. I very well may have missed something simple and obvious.
[Update] It's doable, but it's a massive load on a system already getting battered about. I'm not sure it's worth the effort for the use it would get, nor worth the potential performance hit incurred by having to maintain the extra indices.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified on Monday, February 1, 2010 7:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
It was just a thought. That would be a lot of work for the database if the proper indexes aren't set.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Forums seem to show total message count twice, as in "Msgs 26 to 50 of 288,020 (Total in Forum: 288,020)".
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that too as well.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're starting to sound like Yoda we are...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
very astute indeed
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I noticed that too as well.
Are you teasing Luc? Because I thought you'd know that the two totals would be different based on the date filter
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use the date filter, so no, I wasn't teasing Luc. I was just being me.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Forums seem to show total message count twice, as in "Msgs 26 to 50 of 288,020 (Total in Forum: 288,020)".
The numbers will be same only if you set the date filter to All. If you set it to anything else, the totals are different.
For example, I set it to Last Day and now it shows :
Msgs 1 to 100 of 231 (Total in Forum: 1,003,493)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah that makes perfect sense.
So what remains to be done is not to show the "totals in forum" when no filter is applied (i.e. when the numbers *are* equal).
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: So what remains to be done is not to show the "totals in forum" when no filter is applied (i.e. when the numbers *are* equal).
I disagree Luc. I'd rather not see an inconsistent UI - I'd rather live with the minor redundancy than with an inconsistent UI.
|
|
|
|
|
So we disagree.
Consistency is a good quality, however it is difficult to define. It looks like a container holding many things, including in random order:
1. keeping objects at the same place whatever happens;
2. specially marking inactive things;
3. hiding irrelevant parts.
And one cannot have all of the above all the time. Example: our forums are paged lists, they have navigation links top and bottom, however:
- when several pages exist, there always is a PREV and NEXT link, disabled (grayed) when not applicable (PREV on the first page, NEXT on the last one);
- when only one page exists, there are no PREV and NEXT links.
Is that consistent? it all depends on your view, maybe on the order of the characteristics listed earlier.
Would you prefer to always have PREV/NEXT links? I don't. I do not want to see distractors, especially not ones that are always passive (such as text as opposed to links).
When a PC has only one user without password, Windows doesn't show a login screen. Looks normal to me, I guess you would call that inconsistent.
When a directory is not empty, I expect to see the number of files and some size indication. When the directory is empty, it may say "zero files", it should not say "zero files (0 bytes)".
I do add code to achieve this in my apps, IMO the "consistent" way is more inspired by laziness than by good user experience.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
I only read code that is properly formatted, adding PRE tags is the easiest way to obtain that. [The QA section does it automatically now, I hope we soon get it on regular forums as well]
|
|
|
|
|
I think if the numbers match, a little tune should be played, and the user should be sent a free CodeProject t-shirt.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
