|
I strongly disagree. I do not intend on changing stuff other people wrote, and in general I will not allow others to change what I write. Quick Answers supporting such edits is one reason I'm not active there.
|
|
|
|
|
I Agree on your point Luc. But sometimes some posts needs to moderate. In such case, that will be helpful. I have seen such posts in Quick Answers section.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I strongly disagree
I not so strongly disagree with you. 
Luc Pattyn wrote: I will not allow others to change what I write
I agree here. But this is because we sort of know and would present the question well formed, convey our issues that is easily understandable by others.
Luc Pattyn wrote: I do not intend on changing stuff other people wrote
There are few who fail to present the problem properly, might be bad english or so. We both have seen, based on that kinda questions, instead of answering issue, people either answer them for code formatting or answer a little a different scenario or so. If by editing we can make sure that the question/issue is properly conveyed then we should be able to edit it.
Now, since I agree and disagree here, what if we have one more setting in our profile. 'Allow others to edit' -> Available/Enabled only after certain level reached based on reputation points. Thus, you or me or others who would not prefer their questions edited can handle it from there. For new users or others, editable by default. What say?
Luc Pattyn wrote: Quick Answers supporting such edits is one reason I'm not active there
My proposed solution was more towards bringing you to Q&A.
modified on Saturday, September 11, 2010 4:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
low rep = can be edited
high rep = can edit, and can prevent others to edit
that could work.
what I proposed once was: you need higher rep than author to be allowed to edit;
a user setting, available above some rep threshold, is better.
The problem is: which rep? should a high-rep debator (could be a frequent poster in SoapBox) edit a nested reply in a programming forum (which defaults to "general" instead of "answer")?
I'd still prefer the forums to remain as they are.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the editing / cleanup abilities in QA has worked out really well. I'm constantly seeing formatting, crazy grammar or just simple things like sticking code blocks in PRE tags so reading the questions is less jarring.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it can work well on average, and I am willing to believe it does reasonably well right now in Q&A.
Everyone can make a mistake, miss an essential step in the reasoning, include a faulty code sample, etc. However, when one of my posts deserves a modification, I want to get a message saying so and I will step in and edit and improve if I agree; or probably just reply when I don't. Now that is exactly what the forums offer today.
And I don't want to get a stream of e-mails just because a couple of people are fighting over a sentence of mine. In today's forum, they can add messages and discuss amongst themselves, only the next level will be signaled to me. In an editable situation, I would potentially get lots of notifications, and each time I should then go and figure out what has been changed and why.
I would not mind if you made the first 100 posts of an account editable by people with author+authority > 10K, but that is as far as I would go.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure you suggested this elsewhere (and I know it's been knocked around over the years) but if we had a system whereby any member's post coul be edited by any other member that was 2 levels above the poster's level then would that work?
Platinum can edit Silver, Gold can edit bronze, Silver can edit posts with no status.
However, your "Author + Authority" idea - combining statuses - is an interesting one. We've only ever worked with a "Author OR Authority > X"
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I was ready for this question. Here is my current view. Sorry if it is a bit long. Please read carefully.
PART 1
A problem with all your rep categories is you don't always know which one to use; I have lots of Authority, and almost no Editor, now does that allow me to edit an article, a T/T, a Q&A, ...? and should it, or should it not?
Secondary problems are:
- authority in one field does not guarantee authority in another; an expert in VB.NET might not be very suited to modify a code snippet in a PHP question (IMO there just is no solution to this one).
- you most often fail to clarify which rep applies where, i.e. when it says "your rep allows you to edit/delete this" I basically have to guess which rep is relevant (BTW: I'm currently unable to find that balloon anywhere).
A simple solution would be to use total rep, except that would include Debator, and Debator is a very ambiguous metric as I reported from the start. Its points could be earned by providing (mostly) serious answers in programming forums (and forgetting to mark them "answer" which is the default only at nesting level 1), i.e. debating a programming issue; however it could equally well be earned by posting any kind of messages in the back rooms all day, i.e. while solving the world's biggest problems (I presume that is what goes on there, I never visit; I'm more concerned about smaller problems).
Therefore, I would suggest you use "total rep excluding Debator" (TRED for short), which may in practice be pretty close to Author+Authority, that is why I gave that idea (it also does not need much explaining).
The next issue is: absolute values or colors? the color scheme is arbitrary, and might vary over time (I expect you will discover inflation becomes unacceptable once you have 10,000 platinums of some kind). So I'm more in favor of a numeric test, say TREDeditor > someFactor * TREDoriginal where the factor could be 2 or 3 or more.
PART 2
While I can see the benefit for the site to give lots of people the right to modify material from newcomers, I really don't like the idea of somebody changing anything I published. Here is why:
1. confusion
for articles, the situation is clear and explicit; the author's name is on the top, and he owns copyright (see bottom right corner). In my view copyright implies sole editright too. I really don't want a reader to think that what I wrote but later was modified is actually my text. Yes, I may have gotten a notification, but I might not agree with the change.
for T&T, the copyright is unclear, the bottom-right notice is missing.
for Q&A and forums, confusion is/would be great (as I said long ago: if you want a wiki, don't show author names).
2. notification problem: no notification would definitely be bad. Notification could lead to avalanches when two or more people do not agree amongst themselves on how the original text should be changed.
3. waste of time: when one gets a notification, it will not include what exactly had been changed, nor why.
So to find out what happened one might have to resort to your version compare stuff. For the why part, nothing is available. If the editor instead were to add a message telling "hey this and that needs changed since so and so" then I would, assuming I agree, thank him and adapt my stuff, and even go further than what was suggested. Of course, others might simply ignore all of it.
The good thing is, for me personally, I can live with a situation were TRED is used and someFactor is 2 (or more), as that leaves only CG to deal with. 
But I am pretty sure I would hate to be in a situation where 100 or more people could edit my stuff (that would be when having 8000 total rep and someFactor=2; i.e. 3 years ago).
PART 3
I think widespread edit rights is just a bad idea in general. There will be lots of unnecessary discussions, some pestering, some wars, and there is no need for that. Here is what I propose:
- published material is not editable by other members, with one exception:
- material from young members is editable, by a lot of people (to spread the burden) and under conditions such as the TRED rule;
- young is measured not by a TimeSpan, but by comparing TRED with some personal threshold TRED_OK.
- TRED_OK could start at 3000. However on each down vote one gets, it gets augmented by 1%.
- once TRED exceeds TRED_OK, the member gets some one-time rep bonus and becomes ineditable.
- surprise: only then can he go beyond bronze at anything.
- of course the current values of TRED and TRED_OK would have to be in plain sight on the personal rep page.
I realize this is all irrelevant to the casual passer-by, as is probably any other proposal. So they don't really factor in.
The advantage I'm after is regulars (or future regulars) are guided towards proper posting. Initially their stuff is editable (by lots of people), and hopefully soon, they will post and publish well, and fly on their own.
EPILOGUE
I would also favor the idea where young members can not down vote something they are not involved in; so they need to post in a thread if they want to down-vote any message in that thread, etc. One more reason to strive for TRED_OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: The problem is: which rep?
Authority & Editor ones! Those are the category that majorly deals with in Q&A.
Further, as I said earlier and Chris just confirmed, having editing power has helped a lot in Q&A section.
Luc Pattyn wrote: I'd still prefer the forums to remain as they are.
I am fine with it. Further, I am not sure if it's just me or everyone has noticed, programming forums does not get much of crazy sentenced questions like we do in Q&A.
Lastly, as I told, my answer was more to bring you to Q&A. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sandeep Mewara wrote: bringing you to Q&A
that is not going to happen. I don't like it, so I don't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I don't like it, so I don't use it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in the middle of creating a reply to a C# forum message (here) and I see the old joke again:
 Click here to view the range of emoticons available.
And I do have a screen shot.
I'm on web19, using FF3.6.9, and wearing blue socks (and more).
Have a nice weekend!
ADDED
just noticed, that same faulty page also does not show the widgets on top of the edit box.
/ADDED
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what to say  Clearly the server is, briefly, deciding your browser isn't who it says he isand so thinks you don't have the mojo to use the emoticons. I have a pending task to remove as much of this browser detection annoyance as possible and replace it with ability detection.
Although, looking through the code, there is a potential problem with the blue socks. I'm not sure if it's related though.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
whatever browser, it does not make sense to me to get a link to a separate emoticons page, as clicking said link moves away from the edit page, causing the loss of everything entered so far.
FYI I've e-mailed the screen shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I think this person[^] could be misusing the site.
It's time for a new signature.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I love the statistics section. I think it can have some few extra textual information, like:
Total visits
Last 7 days
Last 30 days
Best regards,
Jaime.
|
|
|
|
|
maybe a nice little graph showing visit count versus time with a logarithmic time scale?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh! Oh! Oh!.... More DATA!!!!
God... We are a bunch of geeks, aren't we.
|
|
|
|
|
With all new "web technologies"*, could it be now possible to make the CPHog behaviour the standard behaviour of CP ? The way you can inline-answer to posts is just priceless. I don't have CPHog installed at home, and when I surf on CP from home, I just feel "dough!".
* Sorry if this sounds dumb, but I have no skills in Web development, so I truly have no idea if Ajax and HTML5 and ... can replace Greasemonkey+CPHog
|
|
|
|
|
This is Feature #897 on our list, priority "very high"
(Priorities range from "One day..." to "Emergency". "Very High" is just under "Luc, Hans and John are all giving us a hard time about it")
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll try and convince them. Give me two minutes and I am back.
It was worth a try. You can lower the priority to "Maybe next week".
|
|
|
|
|
The forums are my personal hobby. I've been itching to get the time to upgrade them. Shog and David did a great job and stealing his ideas shamelessly is the only way I can express my respect.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
