|
Thank you for that explanation. It leads me to a concern I have about this site's strictly numerical rating system. I would prefer to have a rating system that required that lower ratings be explained. The intent of this site, I believe, is to help us all improve. Rating an article with a 1, 2 or 3 without an explanation does nothing toward that end. Especially, as you pointed out, when some votes have more weight than others. It would be great, therefore, if, when a person entered a rating of 1, 2 or 3 for an article the voter is identified and they are required to provide an explanation for the low vote. Not only would this, in my opinion, improve the quality of the rating feedback, it would maybe make someone who tends to rate very low stop and think before heedlessly trashing someone's work.
Providing visibility to the author of the weight being given each vote would also be a help.
|
|
|
|
|
Right now you need to explain 1- and 2-votes on articles, i.e. as soon as one votes low, a textbox needs getting filled explaining oneself; and like you I think that is very good (although one could just enter "got you").
The forced feedback got introduced to call a halt to people who down-voted randomly; some of those seem to vote 3 now, as that does not require any additional action.
I have suggested to expand this to all article votes. If I read the article, I vote and provide feedback. Always, good or bad. Chris is not inclined to do this.
FWIW: On forum messages, you can, but don't have to explain a vote; as those messages are less important, more short-lived, I think that decision is quite OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Chris is not inclined to do this
Incorrect. I've implemented this and it's currently in beta.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Great. It is a great pleasure being corrected like that.
I had suggested that a couple of times, and as you never really reacted on that part of my messages, I had almost given up all hope.
I suggest once more you move the voting tool from the article page to the edit message page then (so we get a large edit box when up/down voting), and change the widget from "New Message" to perhaps "Add a comment or question, and vote" .
BTW: especially when no messages are present yet, the forum (or the possibility to add questions) is not noticed eaisly by newcomers. You might change the layout a bit, maybe use a real (and bigger) button rather the current widget, and maybe have a duplicate close to or in the header.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me clarify: For 1-3 votes you must provide a comment. for 4-5 votes you may provide a comment.
As a user of my own system it would annoy me no end if I had to go into the message posting page to vote. The two are related only conceptually, not practically. I often read an article and just want to give it a thumb's up. I do not want to go into a song and dance about it. Burying the voting inside the message box needlessly complicates things. Everyone is familar with an Ajax driven thumbs up/down or 1-5 rating bar. Not many see a "vote and comment" button housed in a separate room.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'm a lot less cheerful already, but it still is a (small) step in the right direction.
BTW: It also means "I have suggested to expand this to all article votes... Chris is not inclined to do this." was in fact correct.
Chris Maunder wrote: just want to give it a thumb's up
Can be solved like this: do show a voting bar; for most people it would act the same as the "add ... and vote" button, however sufficiently reputed people could use it to vote immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it - not really. I don't have a static IP at home, it is dynamically assigned by my ISP. IP Address blocking could stop me looking at CP, but not even inconvenience him. After all, if your IP is non-static, then unplug the phone line, count to ten and plug it back in isn't a major price to pay for cheap / free adverts...
Did you know:
That by counting the rings on a tree trunk, you can tell how many other trees it has slept with.
|
|
|
|
|
In this page:
http://www.codeproject.com/info/Submit.aspx[^], have a look at the typo in bold:
Foreign language submissions
The Code Project is an English-language site. While we welcome those from all cultures and all walks of life, we do ask that only English language articles be psoted.
About following words in bold:
Submitting an article based on another person's work
It is OK to use others code as a base......
If you are submitting a modification, extension or correction to another persons work then we ask that...
I think in both cases an apostrophe is needed.
Best regards,
Jaime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fvie fro taht!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - I already psoted that some time ago...
|
|
|
|
|
Appears to be nobody cares, because typo is still there.
Best regards,
Jaime.
|
|
|
|
|
No, we care a lot.
But we care more about fully testing our next release in which this typo fix is included.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
This Tosser[^] needs ejection!
Look at his posts.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I was very curious, but the member is already dead
Best regards,
Jaime.
|
|
|
|
|
torpedoed, sunk, no more.
|
|
|
|
|
Please have a look to my other thread, just above this one (typos).
Best regards,
Jaime.
|
|
|
|
|
I've psotted that thread earlier already, maybe it will be fixed in the next release, which I expect later today. But there are no guarantees!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, from time to time users repost their question when they are not satisfied with the answers. If you have this deja-vu effect and click on a users name, it's easy to spot reposts. What is the (community) recommended way to handle it?
I marked subjects with [Repost] and linked to the old one, someone else preferred to delete the question?
Thanks
/M
|
|
|
|
|
I delete them.
.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'd add a comment to the question directing the user to the original post and then delete the question.
|
|
|
|
|
Any suggestion for the members without license to kill?
|
|
|
|
|
You can add a comment as well and/or down-vote and/or flag.
|
|
|
|
|
Please can I have my own forum/room totally devoted to me, where the same group of people can come to read my views/have general discussions about me/and ridicule and generally bully me. Then, if for some reason I dont post for two or three days, the aforementioned members can start 'baiting' threads specifically designed to entice me into posting again so the whole process can start all over again and make me feel even more special about myself, because all these supposedly intelligent members appear to have a hole in their lives, when they don't have interaction with me.
I only ask as CaptainSeeSharp has this so why can't I?
|
|
|
|