|
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Maybe he's figured out that provoking the gag reflex doesn't endear him to anyone.
Well, did you see the new thread he started in this forum? Holy-Moley 
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: If you're truly interested in improving the environment here, lend some support to my suggestion regarding IntelliTXT:
What is so wrong about IntelliTxt?
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: hat is so wrong about IntelliTxt?
See the referenced suggestion. But I'll repeat here:
(1) It unnecessarily complicates the database.
(2) It unnecessarily compilcates the already cluttered sign-up screen.
(3) It defaces the articles here without adding value.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: (1) It unnecessarily complicates the database.
(2) It unnecessarily compilcates the already cluttered sign-up screen.
(3) It defaces the articles here without adding value.
Okay....
(1) How does it complicate an already "cluttered" database? You mean Chris Maunder has let you take a peek inside the CP database? I think not 
(2) Sign-on/up screen doesn't seem cluttered, are you using a high enough resolution on your screen? I'm at 1280x1024 and all is good
(3) Like Colin said in the other thread, something has to generate revenue for this site to keep it going.
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: (1) How does it complicate an already "cluttered" database?
By adding to it.
PaulC1972 wrote: (2) Sign-on/up screen doesn't seem cluttered, are you using a high enough resolution on your screen?
But it is - when signing up, I was asked if I wanted to turn IntelliTXT on or off and needed to make a decision. At the time, I didn't even know what it was, so I was confused. Clutter, confusion, take your pick.
PaulC1972 wrote: something has to generate revenue for this site to keep it going.
Fine. How about something legitimate, that doesn't degrade and deface something else? Why does that something have to spoil something that was fine before?
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: that doesn't degrade and deface something else
I mentioned in another post that I have the IntelliTxt turned off and you do this by going to Update your Setting next to your member number. There is a checkbox down a little ways that you can uncheck and you know what? No IntelliTxt in the articles when you read them ( at least for me :-> )
|
|
|
|
|
PaulC1972 wrote: I mentioned in another post that I have the IntelliTxt turned off and you do this by going to Update your Setting next to your member number. There is a checkbox down a little ways that you can uncheck and you know what? No IntelliTxt in the articles when you read them ( at least for me )
Right. But should you have to do this? And if everyone does this - and there's no logical reason why they wouldn't once they get around to it - then the whole program collapses anyway. It's a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: But should you have to do this?
You are given the choice, unlike certain places around the world :->
I'd like to help but I don't feel like Googling it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody's ever complained to me, but it's freeware, and points to a couple programming articles too. I just want people to check out my stuff and let me know if they like it. So far, I've gotten no interest... or maybe the thing is so good that nobody has any comment I think that's in-scope, but I don't think advertising a commercial product is very good. People do it, but they probably shouldn't. When I see it, I think a little less of the person, but I wouldn't bother to bitch them out for it. I have much more important things to bitch people out for.
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!
|
|
|
|
|
hi
i was just browsing through members profiles and seen some gold members without any (or few) message / article
is there a way to see if a member is active or when last logged
just curious
and how many times the code / demo attached with article downloaded
|
|
|
|
|
Not unless your a CodeProject site admin or site builder.
Stalking someone are you? 
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Stalking someone are you?
no i just sorted who is who list member Number wise
[^]( please sort it member Number wise)
and you can also see the things starting from member #3
i just wanna know are they still members how ever it doesn't matter
it would be better to show how many times code related with article is downloaded
so we will have another criteria for popularity rather than just voting
yes some people can cheat by downloading it multiple times but that would be nicer
|
|
|
|
|
A really gawdy and noticeable newb icon would be good for people who have fewer than, say, 10 posts. This would be handy for quickly identifying the childish pranksters who create new accounts that try to spoof existing accounts by using very similar names.
And another more draconian idea:
Why not have a automatic account deletion if your first post (or first couple of posts) garner a lot of 1 votes? In other words, you start out with a "provisional" account.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Gerrans wrote: A really gawdy and noticeable newb icon would be good for people who have fewer than, say, 10 posts
I think that is a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it should be longer than that - people that have less than 1000 posts AND have been a member less than six months.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
This gets my 5!
Dave Kreskowiak
Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Anyone noticed that many of the links in this weeks newsletter only take you to the home page?
For me this works:
http://www.codeproject.com/article.asp?tag=19354782510839042
(Customizing OpenFileDialog in .NET - CastorTiu)
Where as this doesn't:
http://www.codeproject.com/article.asp?tag=1935478760739042
(SmartCode-An Open Source Code Generator - Danilo Mendez)
Keith
|
|
|
|
|
Following a huge amount of interest in Sql Server Notifications,  well 2 people, I am writing an article on using them. Now, I see that there are several other articles that fall off this, e.g. using Sql Server Service Brokers, etc.
How about sections for Sql Server to post the articles on?
Arthur Dent - "That would explain it. All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world."
Slartibartfast - "No. That's perfectly normal paranoia. Everybody in the universe gets that."
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that a person should only be allowed to vote on articles if :
0) He/she has submitted at least one article themselves
1) At least one article they've submitted is in the same category (i.e., "C++/MFC", or "ASP.NET")
2) His/her average article rating is at least as high as yours (and with a reasonable number of votes on their article(s) to prevent people from doing a drive-by article long enough to vote on someone else's).
3) Platinum members can always vote.
4) Members who've been active for a reasonable amount of time
5) If someone votes a 1, they must provide a valid reason.
Article authors should also have the opportunity to offer rebuttal to 1 votes.
Article voters should be allowed to change their votes but only to increase it. This will allow article authors to amend their articles to be better, and everyone at CP wins.
A platinum member can delete 1 votes on anyone's article that are not valid.
If someone continues to make invalid votes, he should be banned from the voting process on the entire site.
A 1 vote cast by a platinum member cannot be deleted.
"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, I agree with the sentiment, but I think the extent that you are proposing would be just too onerous. I think the only limitation on who can vote should be your #4, been a member for a while. But I have no idea on what that limit should be.
The other idea I really like is being able to change your vote as an article is improved.
One thing I would like to see is a system similar to MSDN where one can see how many votes of each ranking the article got, that would be more informative than just the weighted average.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I have a perfect (and recent) example of article abuse. Someone created an account here, and used it to post a single message and cast a single 1 vote - in my artcle.
I recognize that Chris doesn't want to inhibit the use of the site by new members, but at the same same, he has a responsibility to protect the users that have been contributing in a positive manner to CodeProject from the article abuse. Afterall, the articles/free source code are the primary draw to the site. If contributing users are continually abused, they'll stop posting articles.
Maybe it's too easy to become a gold and/or silver member... Maybe on top of the existing article-posting requirement, the person has to have been an active member for at least one year for silver, and three years for gold. I think the user level advancement for just being on CP for a year is bogus. That means someone could post zero messages and zero articles and still be gold in three years.
Maybe the vote weighting for articles needs to include the following items for the voter:
- article count in the code category (so someone that has never written an article in "MFC/C++" has a much lower weighted vote than someone that's posted even just 1).
- average article rating for that voter
Of course, we have the continuing problem of people being able to create multiple accounts, and until Chris addresses that, it's going to be an uphill battle.
Maybe a fix for that would be to have the site automatically email inactive users to see if they really exist, or start deleting accounts of people with no activity after a certain amount of time (few/no messages, no articles, and no downloads).
I'm aware that CP makes money because of it's user count, but it's also widely known that a good number of these "users" are duplicate accounts for people that want to abuse the site. Maybe one approach to fixing this is to not allow gmail, hotmail and mail accounts of that ilk to be used for email addresses. Since CP doesn't sell/distribute user info, there's no reason people can't use "real" email accounts.
[edit]
Here's a perfect example of someone that SHOULD NOT be a gold member - he's been here over a year, posted NO articles, and only five messages in that time - his gold membership is bullshit:
http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/whos_who.asp?id=671573[^]
[/edit]
-- modified at 6:17 Tuesday 21st November, 2006
"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: Maybe it's too easy to become a gold and/or silver member
I have always thought that. Just simply having an account that does absolutely nothing but sit there is not a good reason to have your status boosted. One has to earn a platinum status, why not earn the other levels also?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good, use it!!!
|
|
|
|
|
I partially agree. I'd like a way to give someone who primarily lurks some status over someone who's only logged in twice. Perhaps instead of giving credit for days since account creation, the number of unique days the user logged in could be used for a time component instead. ie 200-250 login-days counting for a status increase instead of 365 callenderdays.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they do have to post x number of articles to earn a silver or gold - it's the "bonus" advancement based simply on the age of the account that I have a problem with.
"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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
