|
That's a possibility but I'm thinking it might be a bit annoying and less understandable/commonplace than the wiki approach.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Thiru
Thanks for the reply. When I saw John's post I wrongly assumed that you are allowing people with certain editor rep to edit anyone's articles. When I say article I mean the old classic article (not blogs or Tip/Trick entries).
For a Tip/Trick, I completely get your design - since from the beginning it was designed to be used in a wiki-ish style. For normal classic articles, it obviously wouldn't be the right approach.
And even for a Tip/Trick, based on your post it seems an author can restrict edits to a certain reputation level - which seems good enough to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Great! 
|
|
|
|
|
But under the new system, who really is a platinum member?
.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
|
|
|
|
|
How do you feel it's best worked out?
More importantly: what is a member level useful for?
I, personally, feel that the concept of a "platinum" member is misleading because a member can be platinum in articles, but not in answers. Or a member may be an absolute fixture here, may spend all his or her days helping others find their way around, giving feedback on new articles, and generally keeping us all amused, but may never have answered a technical question or posted a single article. This person, though, is worth their weight in gold (or platinum, depending how funny their jokes are).
Member levels are used to provide members with access, features and the ability to help out with administration tasks. For this, member level only makes sense in the context of the action. If a member has marked his article as editable by Gold members then you have to be a Gold author / editor to get this access.
However, the bit here that I think is the crux of your question is if you want say "I am a X member", where X in {Bronze,..., Platinum} then what do you say?
My feeling is you should be considered the level that is highest out of all the categories of levels available.
Workable?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Granted, there is no tangible benefit to attaining a certain level - "I'm a Codeproject platinum member and all I got was this lousy t-shirt (that I had to pay for)".
One of the categories I have a problem with is that of "Enquirer". Many of us find the answers to our questions before posting a question on CP. I've been here for nine years, and my Enquirer score is just 492 - not even silver yet. Christian Graus is only at 106 - just barely silver. I don't think either of us will attain Enquirer "Platinum" in our lifetimes.
Chris Maunder wrote: However, the bit here that I think is the crux of your question is if you want say "I am a X member", where X in {Bronze,..., Platinum} then what do you say?
My feeling is you should be considered the level that is highest out of all the categories of levels available.
Yeah, that's what I'm after - how do I describe my membership status? I think that platinum status should be something you have to work hard for. Instead of using the highest single category level, use the average of the highest three levels as the members overall status. I think that would keep platinum "up there" at the level of importance that we all place on it.
Does all this mean that mere duration of membership will no longer be considered for membership level?
.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
|
|
|
|
|
No one - apart from possibly the serial non-googler - is going to achieve platinum enquirer. That status type is only meant to give others a guide as to whether the person asking the question has asked lots (and so knows the deal), a few (they are getting the hang of it) or none (be gentle).
Picking the top 3 and averaging could be a little unrealistic. My original thought was that members would have something like
John Simmons - Platinum Level Author, Gold Level Expert
and leave it at that. Your profile would have the levels of everything else. Or we could possibly have:
John Simmons - Platinum Level Author, Gold Level Expert
(Site Participation: Platinum)
If we want to guilt people into coming and visiting us more often because we may be feeling unloved.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Does all this mean that mere duration of membership will no longer be considered for membership level?
Signing in give you participation points, but other than that, time does not contribute to status. We could certainly have a "active in a given year" event where, if you post 100 messages (or whatever) then you get a chunk of participation points for that year.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If we want to guilt people into coming and visiting us more often because we may be feeling unloved.
I have a thought - maybe we should have a New Member of the Year award for the user that gains the most points (that exceed a specified minimum) over the year. This user would get additional points (like MVPs do, but maybe not as many - say 500 points), as well as his/her choice from a selected group software and/or hardware (like monthly contest winners get, only maybe a little more substantial).
Chris Maunder wrote: if you post 100 messages (or whatever) then you get a chunk of participation points for that year.
How about just giving a 50-point bonus for every 1000 points of overall reputation gained for that year.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
So how is a members overall status going to be determined?
.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
|
|
|
|
|
I think overall status level would be just the average of all things (participant, author, authority, editor, etc.,). Just like the graph shows overall reputation.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
If that were to happen, I'd be demoted to Silver. I have (way beyond) platinum status in three of the categories, and bronze in the others. That doesn't seem fair...
.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
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the overall reputation should be calculated only by the article count. There are many ways to contribute to the site, and I'm glad they're recognising it now. I'm not sure if you'll be demoted (that may depend on how much you've scored with your contributions, whatever they may be). Perhaps, someone from CP could answer this.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
For the MVP insidivists like yourself, the category of #Kryptonite# should be added.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction.
My work here is done.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the style sheets need some work. It seems that it's inserting excessive vertical whitespace before and after major elements (like headers and pre blocks) and it's almost impossible to format your content when the preview shows as it does.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
I second that. Forums and (old) articles have a good spatial density, they don't waste screen real estate. The new stuff (QA and TT) is wasting a lot of space. Using them requires a lot of clicking, scrolling and page loading.
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]
|
|
|
|
|
Inserting space before and after PRE tags has been an issue since the year dot. It's not a stylesheet issue (actually, it is easily solvable using CSS, if only everyone would stop using IE6/7), it's a post-processing issue that we know about and are working to fix.
The Preview thing is an odd, odd case. We're on that too.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like my article is still experiencing phantom locks:
Article is locked for editing by Smitha Vijayan. Lock expires in 3 minutes.
*a couple minutes go by and I refresh the page*
Article is locked for editing by Smitha Vijayan. Lock expires in 1 minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi aspdotnetdev,
It seems to be an error. I have not worked on your article recently. I will email the webmaster about it.
Cheers
Smitha
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Smitha,
Just to let you know this has also been happening with my latest article[^] since you edited it.
Nick
----------------------------------
Be excellent to each other
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Nick,
Thanks for notifying me. I've notified the admins about the problem.
Cheers
Smitha
|
|
|
|
|
The issue has been found and fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Choosing 'Latest Articles' from the 'Articles' menu loads Tips/Tricks with the Tip Tricks check box selected (as default). This should be 'Article' instead.
|
|
|
|
|
There are 3 checkboxes on that page that allow you to filter out the article types you do (and don't) want to see.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think what's confusing is the inconsistency. There's a menuitem just for tips (it defaults to the other checkboxes being unticked), but there's no such menuitem for blogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: what's confusing is the inconsistency
Exactly..
The thing is when I load the Articles -> Latest Articles section, the Tips / Tricks check box is checked.
Can it not be that the articles check box is checked when a user chooses to view Latest Articles (via menu dropdown) and the tips check box checked when the user chooses to view Latest Tips/Tricks (via menu dropdown)?
Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest.
Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
