|
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
|
|
|
|
|
I don't agree, but as we are here in teh suggestions-foum - I have one.
Would it be possible to write in front of 1 'poor' and at the end of 5 'ver good' ore something like this. As in our school-system 1 is very good and 5 is poor, this has been confusing me at the beginning here.
It's only a suggestion, thanks, Gerhard
|
|
|
|
|
Hey guys, I just got a weird idea. It's not about programming. It's about a little "greeny" friend we have here. I've been surfing on CodeProject since its early starts. I've always saw that little green mascot near every CodeProject titles. Does someone knows if it have a name? If not, should we do a little contest to give it one? I think we have to do this if it's not already done.
Think about it!
Cheers,
Stef
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh oups!!
By the way, thanks!
Progamming looks like taking drugs...
I think I did an overdose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: How about putting all the ads on a separate page so we can see them when we want to, and not have them cluttering the screen the rest of the time. Trying to read these forums with a brightly-colored, animated ad at the left is like trying to read a book with someone flashing a light in your left eye. Good design principles (you'd never read a book that way) should never be trumped by greed.
Um. I guess you are being sarcastic because I've seen your ads here too.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: But back to the point. Would you allow someone to flash a lamp at your side while you were trying to read? I think not. So why should we - as a society of technology "users" - accept animated advertisments on our screens, our televisions, etc?
If you'd been around for a while, you'd know that I hate advertising in all its forms - however some times it is a necessary evil. Places like CP cannot survive without it. A few ads here and there are the price we pay for having this wonderful free service.
Personally, I'd prefer to have the option of subscribing to the site and see pages without ads. $20 a month would be a small price to pay.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: Me too. But with 3,000,000 members, it shouldn't take $20 a month. A buck a year from each user would probably be sufficient. I know I could maintain a site like this if I had $3 million a year to work with, and I know I'd pay a buck a year not to have to look at the ads.
I think you'd struggle to get all 3 million to pay. (Personally, I think you'd find less than 1000 members who'd pay) The idea has been suggested before and not really taken off. CodeProject is as valuable to me as my MSDN subscription, so $20 a month seems a reasonable price to pay.
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
The Osmosian Order wrote: hat does that say about them? Or about the service? Or about the way the CodeProject people are always bragging about the number of "double-opt-in" members. If those members won't pay a buck a year to subscribe, what does their "membership" really mean?
People tend to be cheap. They'll take a resource that gives them much benefit for granted until it's gone and it's too late.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a "parent link" on messages? Sometimes it's hard to find the parent of a reply, especially in large threads, spanning over several pages.
--
100% natural. No superstitious additives.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif)
's name is Bob 
