|
I understood both http://digital-clipart.de/ and http://www.codeproject.com/ are already pointing to the same IP address, by some mistake in the .de DNS tables; so I would expect the German registrars should be made aware and asked to remove such definition.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I understood both http://digital-clipart.de/ and http://www.codeproject.com/ are already pointing to the same IP address, by some mistake in the .de DNS tables; so I would expect the German registrars should be made aware and asked to remove such definition.
Not specific to digital clipart, but anyone can point their domains to CP's IP address (for whatever reasons they have). So I was wondering if there could be code that would detect the URL, see if it's codeproject.com and if it's not, then redirect to codeproject.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and this code is already part of our system, but we have it turned off to give us some flexibility in other areas.
Easy enough to turn it back on...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: some flexibility in other areas
as in someLetter.codeproject.com? where someLetter is some letter, Latin or Greek?
you might check there is codeproject.com in there, and show a mysterious error page when there isn't.
however, IMO all this is just curing symptoms, not fixing the cause of the German masquerade.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: not fixing the cause of the German masquerade.
You cannot fix the cause. One reason people do it is for an improved google rank. Example, I register supercodefromspace.com and redirect it to CP's IP (via DNS). I post a few links around the web till Google picks on it, and I wait for Google to think that it's a mirror domain. My domain's page rank shoots up immediately, at which point, I set up a script/cgi so that any page request on my domain shows an ad or two. If I am smart I retain the CP page content and insert my ads all around the page. Lots of traffic, ads, and money. It's kinda parasitic but in a passive way since Chris and CP are not really affected. But it's still unethical and so the url-detection and redirect-to-regular-domain trick will prevent people from doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. I never looked at it in that way. So I would definitely check "codeprojec.com" is present in the URL before presenting the page content.
Thanks for the insight.
|
|
|
|
|
Or basically prevent people from accessing the site through other URLs.
|
|
|
|
|
Not in the bug list, but probably a repsot (as far as the bug goes, not the details mentioned here):
reading one of my T&T[^] once more, I discovered a lot of UL tags got added somehow, demoting some list items to a deeper nesting. I removed them manually (going from revision 25 to 26).
|
|
|
|
|
This bug has been fixed but not yet deployed. Hopefully we'll have this live in the next few days.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
I'll revisit the T&T in a couple of days, as it still has some extraneous ULs.
BTW: have you considered showing a version number and build datetime, so we can see if and when you have deployed new stuff?
you then could say "will be fixed in version 3212".
|
|
|
|
|
At the very bottom of the page, under "Last Updated" you should see a version number.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I see it, thanks. Why don't you use it in your communications then?
BTW: it also says "Last Updated 10 Aug 2007", that is a very stable application!
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Last Updated 10 Aug 2007
That's the individual page, not the framework version
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris/Site Admins,
Can you make some improvements in Voting? The author should know who is voting and what's their rankings. You can put a link either in the Article page or notify the Author using mail notifier. It will be easier to understand who is voting for the article.
|
|
|
|
|
This will not be done. The reason is that Chris, et al, are afraid that will lead to revenge voting, and I have to say they're probably correct in thinking this would happen. The maturity level exhibited by the bulk of the members here proves the theory.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: This will not be done. The reason is that Chris, et al, are afraid that will lead to revenge voting, and I have to say they're probably correct in thinking this would happen
That logic is kinda flawed. 1 and 2 votes now do show you who voted. And it's 1s and 2s that can result in revenge voting. 3 is kinda a gray area. Maybe 3 should require a comment too (like with 1 and 2).
Right now the anonymous votes are the good ones, which won't result in revenge voting anyway. In fact I think people who vote 4 or 5 should manually post a complimentary message anyway just to be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: In fact I think people who vote 4 or 5 should manually post a complimentary message anyway just to be nice.
Nish, I agree all votes on articles should require a message, hence the voting tool should not be on the article page, it should be on the edit reply page. However Chris[^] wants to favor lazy positive people over explicitly positive people. As a side effect, as higher votes are easier to cast, article scores are inflated and actual article appreciation could be less than their score would lead you to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The voting links need to be removed completely. You should only be able to vote when you start a new thread in the article forum. I don't see the point of comment-less votes, even if they are 5s. Other than boosting the author's ego (which is nice for sure) it doesn't serve any purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Chris, et al, are afraid that will lead to revenge voting
Revenge voting is facilitated by the current voting system. As you say, given the maturity level of some members, it's inevitable they will use any tool at their disposal, and this includes the 1-5 voting system. A system that eliminates 1-5 voting would also eliminate revenge voting.
[update: Thanks for the 1 vote. Flaming red letters wouldn't have made my point better.]
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: A system that eliminates 1-5 voting would also eliminate revenge voting.
I happen to favor the "is worthy/useful" voting system where there is only one vote you can cast. Not voting indicates that you either don't care or that you don't find it useful/worthy, and there would be no reason to justify your non-vote (unless you felt the need). A suitable rating metric could be interpolated from the number of votes an article gets, how many times it's bookmarked, how many times its downloaded.
I think someone else even brought up a system where you separately judge an article/tip/blog in several categories like:
0) Formatting of content
1) Readability
2) Innovative concepts
3) Overall quality
Of course, these would all be the "cast a vote or don't cast a vote" that I described above, and this would only apply to articles/tips/blogs.
As far as message forums go, I see no real reason to mark a question as a "good question" unless the OP found a solution and posted it in his original message. Other than that, the "vote or not" way may be appropriate for the responses to a message.
In the end, there are big piles of what-if's that they'd have to wade through to implement something like that.
.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 agree with everything you say.
Questions like the OP had are not going to stop until the 1-5 voting system is eliminated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No surprise there, Luc.
Tell me, how many people are going to have to come to this forum and complain about a low vote, before you acknowledge there is a problem? Don't you realize how many have already complained?
So far, in the posts you have made about the voting system, you have made it very clear what you want; but not one word about the grief the 1-5 voting system has caused other people.
I find your attitude to be both selfish and irresponsible. How can you pretend to care about the site, when you don't care about the people?
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: Don't you realize how many have already complained?
I do. Less than 1% of article authors.
The article scoring system gives value to the CP article collection. You can't get a realistic score with a biased system, and what you propose is extremely biased, in fact it is worthless.
Hans Dietrich wrote: Questions like the OP had are not going to stop until the 1-5 voting system is eliminated.
In your dreams. All the OP said was: "The author should know who is voting and what's their rankings", modifying the semantics of votes does not relate to that at all.
You have published 95 articles (very good), and they have an average score exceeding 4.6, which is more than most others including Christian Graus, Marc Clifton, e.a.; if there now is an occasional 1-vote, and that would be removed or have been avoided somehow, your average might maybe rise to 4.7, so what? what does it matter, you know what your articles are worth, and any reader will see the value too.
Please stop whining. There is no justification to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc, congratulations. I didn't think you would once again blow off all the problems with the 1-5 voting system, but that's what you just did.
Luc Pattyn wrote: You can't get a realistic score with a biased system
This is really hard to swallow coming from you. You have suggested so many baroque tweaks to the voting system that I've lost count. But when it comes to eliminating the down-voting of articles that aren't popular, Oh, no, that's biased. You really crack me up.
Luc Pattyn wrote: your average might maybe rise to 4.7, so what?
Exactly. I have nothing to gain, and I think people realize I'm not arguing for myself. I really wonder about your motivation, though. Do you like down-voting articles? Do you get some kind of kick out of it? Does it make you feel important or powerful? Maybe you should talk to somebody about this.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Please stop whining. There is no justification to it.
When you keep posting such amusing drivel? Not a chance!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
