|
|
|
Could you please eliminate the ability to give 1 to a post, unless sender describes his/her reason?
Like Windows 2003 that we have to explain the reason to shutdown a server, it might be good not to be permited to give a 1, unless we define a good reason, at least this way, we understand that the 1 has a true reason or not, if Like a usual message the reason will be published globally.
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
-- modified at 6:59 Tuesday 13th June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Then, 2 becomes 1; we need to give reasons for 2...
Then, 3 becomes 1; we need to give reasons for 3...
Then...
So we need to give reasons for every vote. We can't vote any more.
- It's easier to make than to correct a mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
Voting is a fundamental pillar of western civilisation. To be denied the ability to vote would be a gross injustice.
Voltaire (1694-1778) wrote: I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.
Jörgen Sigvardsson , on the subject of Wikipedia, wrote: Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least you have the chance to correct the wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
I never saied "Deny the ability to vote"
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: I never saied "Deny the ability to vote"
Actually, you did say that, even if you didn't realise that you did. You said "Could you please eliminate the ability to give 1 to a post, unless sender describes his/her reason?". If the person doesn't want to give a reason they would be denied the ability to vote the message.
The buttons 1 to 5 are voting buttons - That is why, when you press one it says
Voted: 5
Scottish Developers upcoming sessions include:
.NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy
My: Website | Blog
-- modified at 2:37 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
So, it might be probably about my bad english. I try to explain it more.
I understand voting. I actually don't want to deny giving 1. I just want the 1er(The guy/lady who gives a 1), describe his/her reason, or can't give such a bad vote. I gave an example about Windows 2003 to make myself more clear. It's a box next to "1" that any one selecting 1 must fill it, otherwise rating will not be done.(I can't find a better word to put here instead of "be done", but I know about voting there was one)
So you can give a "1" just if you say why. That's it.
Is it equal to remove 1? If so, I must be crazy giving such an idea because 1 becomes 2! we have just replaced a symbol("1") with another ("2").
Did I describe it good enough?
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote: You'd end up with lots of comments like this: adfjd;fjadl;fdjas
By strange coincidence, that's also the top reason my Win2k3 install has been shut down... 
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
Requiring voters to comment will not fix anything. You'd end up with lots of comments like this: adfjd;fjadl;fdjas
I answered this already:
at least this way, we understand that the 1 has a true reason or not, if Like a usual message the reason will be published globally.;)
P.S. I read your article about COM, great and I created a picture that need to send you, how can I do that? (I hope you'll read this)
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll soon do that, thanks.
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
I sent it. Please take a look at it.
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Look at rating of my original message, no need to that, just look at it's color, Didn't I said that we should do something for 1's. Now in this color no one else will even try to read that (to give me more 1's).
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
-- modified at 0:26 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: I really need to know how to do X, but X is a rare and obscure thing. If someone posts the answer I need, most people will find it useless (or indecipherable) and will vote it down
What absolute rubbish - this just does NOT happen EVER. Nobody votes a technical post down just because it has no meaning to them - they just move onto a subject that is more of interest to them.
What DOES get voted down, with good reason, is people like YOU who post nothing but advertisments, or off-topic posts about how rubbish {XYZ} by microsoft is.
Current blacklist
svmilky - Extremely rude | FeRtoll - Rude personal emails | ironstrike1 - Rude & Obnoxious behaviour
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of not useful, you've done it again. The more you post, the more useless I see your opinions are. Keep it up and my profile filter will just about be done with you.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
When no one was looking, every single American woman between the ages of 18 and 32 went out and got a tatoo just above their rumpus. [link[^]]
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: Score: 1.0 (7 votes).
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach...
|
|
|
|
|
I think any criticism without a base or a reason will be converted to something destructive.
Consider 2 children talking about 2 pictures of 2 cars. One might say "The left one is better" while the other believes "No, the right one...."
I believe "when there is no base, or reason the result of a voting is not reliable."
But we want a quick way to measure qualities as well, we must think about a better way.
What I suggested was an idea that people mostly did not like. I hope some one with a better idea comments.
I personally like the fact that here most of those who gave me 1, were reasonable logical peoples who described the reason of their disagreement. I just wanted that such a thing happens wherever there is a bad rating.
Ragards
Hamed, a guy who wants to be a real programmer! 
-- modified at 11:28 Wednesday 14th June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Hamed Mosavi wrote: Could you please eliminate the ability to give 1 to a post, unless sender describes his/her reason?
People who will give constructive feedback already do. Forcing others to do so just doesn't work.
If your article or post is truely worthy, overtime the 5 votes will out weigh the 1 votes.
This is the internet, the home of the annoyimous (sic). The best bet is to ignore those who don't add anything constructive to the debate and conversations. Otherwise you'll just end up going mad.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
-- modified at 3:10 Thursday 15th June, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Absolutely acceptable.
What made me angry and pushed me to place that request was that I asked a question in a board, some one kindly answered and then I saw a 1 in his box! I had to describe him that it was not me who gave you 1.
But what you mentioned is correct. I have to change the way I look at votes.
//This is not a signature
while (I'm_alive) {
printf("I Love Programming");
}
|
|
|
|
|
Due to the fact that someone's message is not as important as shutdowning the whole production server(I normally disable this feature for the testing boxes).
Best regards,
-----------
Igor Sukhovhttp://sukhov.net
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
