|
Yes, It is. 
Thanks Sean!
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a re-post of one I accidentally put in the wrong forum.  Please see the original post at :http://lamp.codeproject.com/script/Forums/View.aspx?fid=2605&msg=2720421
Thanks,
Time Traveler and Dimension Hopper, Bili Joe
____________________________________________
"It is never too late to give up our prejudices.." Henry D Thoreau
"The world is the totality of facts, not things." Ludwig Wittgenstein
"The fastest path to knowledge is through acknowledged mistakes." Anon.
"The object of the superior man is truth." Confucius
"I think, therefore I am." René Descartes
"Science may be described as the art of systematic oversimplification" Sir Karl Popper
|
|
|
|
|
The temporary workaround most of us use is to use one password for CP (that we will not use anywhere else). That way even if it's compromised other accounts remain safe. You could do that too.
Chris did mention that he might change this behavior in future.
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest having passwords for every application unique and strong. We can take help of Password Manager like KeePass.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts... --William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I think it is a good idea that this is done. The reason I like it is that even though you chose the password, The Code Project wants to ensure that it is the email user that will be using the account, which may not necessarily be you. Since you can put in any email address when you sign up for an account, this protocol ensures that the password will be known to the email user and not necessarily just by the person who has signed up.
Regardless, welcome aboard.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
|
|
|
|
|
The password safe way to handle the email confirmation is to send an email saying "click here to activate the account. IF you didn't create it, do nothing, it'll automatically be deleted."
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
Brought over from the lounge...
How about allowing a user to simply mark an article as "useful", with no other option. That way, the article accumulates a number of "useful" votes, and mostly by the people that actually use the code.
Maybe we could refer to "useful" votes as "Bobs". So if an article has a high number of "Bobs", it must be a good article.
Converting existing articles to the new system would entail making all 3-5 votes count as "useful" votes, and 1-2 votes would simply be ignored.
I think this system would eliminate the negative voting (and the problems created as a result) completely.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
modified on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
It's an excellent idea, and one to be applauded. It also seems to be a glimpse of the softer, caring side of the outlaw programmer.
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree.
The only thing I will miss about the current voting system is that when I'm looking for an article, I will usually look at the highest-rated article first, then the next, and so on. Over time, I suppose the "useful vote count" (divided by number of views ?) will supplant this.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: (divided by number of views ?)
Right, how do you compare a new article with 10 Bobs for 10 views against an older article with 100 Bobs for 1000 views?
But "views" would be no good anyway; I can (and do) view articles multiple times, but can only provide one vote. Even an article I like would be diminished each time I refer back to it. Heck, I wouldn't want to recommend my own articles to anyone unless I was sure they'd vote positively for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Great Idea John.
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. - Martin Luther King Jr.
Ernest Laurentin
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so let's use this[^] article as an example. Would the average Code Project member consider it useful? At first glance I don't - I suspect many others would feel the same way. I do consider it a good article though.
I think your idea has merit, but I think article rating and article usefullness are two different things. Views tend to reflect expected usefullness (based on the title) over time, so there is a bit of overlap.
Perhaps both ratings would be appropriate. A usefullness rating and an article quality rating.
Cheers,
Drew.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my suggestion:
Some people vote 1 point because they genuinely feel that something sucks.
Some people vote 1 point because that's the measure of their own life.
We want to encourage the former and minimise the latter (give them back a "1 vote" to reflect their voting pattern that in turn reflects their life).
Currently, voting is distinguished from leaving a message. To vote and leave a message requires two separate submissions.
My suggestion is to explicitly combine voting and leaving a message.
Anyone can still just vote, or just leave a message, or combine both in one action.
Where they have to do both is if they are an early voter for a message or article, regardless of what their vote is (otherwise slime-bag 1 voters will just become 2 voters). Or where they vote against the trend.
Of course, their message can get voted down (or up), and this can be used to give a weighting to their vote. The message can also be marked as spam/abuse and the associated vote discarded entirely.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Humphries wrote: Some people vote 1 point because they genuinely feel that something sucks
My contention is that the pre-screening that gets done before an article is posted theoretically should weed out all the articles that would, for one reason or another, garner a 1 (or even 2). At that point, the article is either useful to one or more other users, or it's not.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: My contention is that the pre-screening that gets done before an article is posted theoretically should weed out all the articles that would, for one reason or another, garner a 1 (or even 2).
I think that depends on who does the "pre-screening". From the message that appears at the top of the article being screened:
Purpose: to stop the publication of obviously inappropriate material, plagiarised content or articles that are clearly not an actual article. If the author has genuinely tried to provide a decent article, even if they may need some encouraging to improve it, then let it through.
Based on that, even if the article is clearly not useful but well-written (such as the one[^] Drew pointed to) it should still be allowed through for the community to vote on its usefulness.
Scott Dorman Microsoft® MVP - Visual C# | MCPD
President - Tampa Bay IASA
[ Blog][ Articles][ Forum Guidelines]
Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
|
|
|
|
|
I guess I don't understand your argument.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I liked your idea about useful vs. not. My only addition to that is that the useful or not votes be recorded according to what else the voting user also likes / dislikes, so that users can find things by following what other users who share their preferences also liked.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Humphries wrote: Actually I liked your idea about useful vs. not. My only addition to that is that the useful or not votes be recorded according to what else the voting user also likes / dislikes, so that users can find things by following what other users who share their preferences also liked.
But an article's usefulness to another user shouldn't indicate a trend in what the user likes/dislikes. When I say "useful", I mean it's got a coding technique, or explanatory text that a given user finds useful - and whether code is useful or not depends on what the user is looking for.
Personally, I don't scan the articles unless I'm looking for something in particular. If I use the code (or derive code from it), I mark it a 4 or 5. If I don't use it, I usually don't vote it at all.
[EDIT] Correct a misspelling and add a missing parenthesis.
"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." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
QUOTE: "Personally, I don't scan the articles unless I'm looking for something in particular. If I use the code (or derive code from it, I mark it a 4 or 5. If I don't used it, I usually don't vote it at all."
(Sorry, qoute buttons don't appear when I am in the firm)
Completely agree. I do the same.
Regards.
--------
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
“The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet.” - Michael A. Jackson
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFS, give it a break man.
The Web Developer wrote: didn't i said if u r not chris don't read this message so who read it other than chris M. i thought their is only one chris M. here
Send him a private email, then.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
The C# forum is getting flooded with useless questions.
|
|
|
|
|
I second that.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: The C# forum is getting flooded with useless questions.
And that's not just for reporting services. The crap to useful ratio is extremely high.
|
|
|
|
|
They show up in the WebDev forum too. As do Crystal Reports questions.
Hmm...
Could we maybe get a generic "Reporting" forum... and a bit of code server-side to funnel all messages containing "Report" into it? 
---- You're right.
These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets .
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
