|
Michael P Butler wrote:
>2. you can only rate a given article once, and you can't rate your own articles.
How would you keep track of this? Cookies aren't much use, storing this info in a database would use up a lot of space.
What if the rating that you gave autmatically appears in the required comment that you posted, in the title or something. Then I do not know if this is possible, because of the way the site is written or what not, but the comments with scores cannot be modified, that way the sender could not remove the score that was automatically placed by scripts.
Even if someone places the "asdlfjkaslfj" type comments, then you will know how credible that vote was, and you can still see who voted.
Michael P Butler wrote:
>1. only members can rate
Not hard to generate multiple accounts.
You can see how credible a person is to vote on an article by their activity on the site. Unless one person maintains multiple accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
as an illustration of why the ratings don't work:
in the 10 minutes since i started this thread my latest article has generated 8 ratings, all 1's. i admit my article is no masterpiece, but it's no 1, either.
children
-c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
|
|
|
|
|
Two things,
First, I don't think your rating was helped by Nish commenting on it being the highest rated article. (Assuming we are talking about the Font Combobox)
Secondly, I think if we ignore the 'brats' who keep giving low ratings, they'll get bored and give up. The ratings are too subjective to pay any attention to. Some people might rate an article low because all it has is source and a brief description. Some people might rate an article low because they couldn't understand it, or because they found it was telling them something they already know. Concentrate on the written feedback and ignore the ratings.
Michael 
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
First, I don't think your rating was helped by Nish commenting on it being the highest rated article.
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote:
in the 10 minutes since i started this thread my latest article has generated 8 ratings, all 1's. i admit my article is no masterpiece, but it's no 1, either.
I would have expected that...
In fact i got a few 1s instantly after I posted some stuff about ratings on your article foruym
Nish
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care if an article rates a 0.1, if it solves my problem, the author is my hero of the week.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote:
don't care if an article rates a 0.1, if it solves my problem, the author is my hero of the week.
Ok. You want an article on creating toolbars. You see two articles. One of them is rated 4.8 and the other 2.2.
answer me honestly now.
Which one would you look at?
Nish
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote:
Which one would you look at?
Both, especially if they seemed to do what I need to get done. The 4.8 might get my first glance, but I would check all the possibilities for the closest match to my situation. An article might rate a 2.2 for any number of reasons, only one of them being the quality of the code itself. It's the code that counts!
|
|
|
|
|
I agree completely. Seldom does a single article completely meet my needs; usually i end up using code from several related articles. The final decision on what code to go with is based on: 1) how understandable the code is, and 2) how close it comes to doing what i need. I imagine there are very few projects out there where a control/method/library is used "as-is"; if the project has any importance at all, the author(s) will want to have as many options and as much information as possible.
Other than a ego booster/crusher in regard to my own articles, i generally ignore ratings entirely.
And if words were wisdom, I'd be talking even more. The Offspring, I Choose
|
|
|
|
|
I think that a better implementation would be:
Create some kinda timer with Javascript that counts the time that the user is reading the article. If the timer elapses 3, maybe 4 minutes the user will be able to vote.
That would give some more guarante that the user readed the article before voting.
Mauricio Ritter - Brazil
Sonorking now: 100.13560 Trank
My latest article:
Pentominos - A C# implementation of the famous Puzzle Game
|
|
|
|
|
That works so long as you don't do what I do... Right Click, Open in New Window then continue looking for other goodies while the page loads, often leaving the page open for several minutes before I get to it
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"Smile your little smile, take some tea with me awhile.
And every day we'll turn another page.
Behind our glass we'll sit and look at our ever-open book,
One brown mouse sitting in a cage."
"One Brown Mouse" from Heavy Horses, Jethro Tull 1978
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah, forgot about the focus/blur events (why did they have to use blur? Everytime I see it I think some kid came up with the event name  )
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"Smile your little smile, take some tea with me awhile.
And every day we'll turn another page.
Behind our glass we'll sit and look at our ever-open book,
One brown mouse sitting in a cage."
"One Brown Mouse" from Heavy Horses, Jethro Tull 1978
|
|
|
|
|
How about weighting the votes according to the reputation of the voter when computing the average scores. In other words gold members' votes would be worth 2 votes, silver would be worth one, bronze worth half, etc. You could reward legitimate voters (real comments) with more weight, and punish bogus voters ("sdflkjhlkwejh" comments) with less weight. This system would ensure that more of the reputed voters' scores showed up in the average score for an article, and less of the bogus votes.
Why not throw away a dime?
I throw away ten pennies all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats an interesting idea, a little like the SlashDot moderation/meta moderation system. I think a combination of your suggestion and some of Chris's above might work. I think it gives us all some food for thought.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
I still think a panel is better.
A panel of 10 can be selected.
Maybe separate panels for each section.
Nish
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
A panel would require going through every article posted and rating it. These ten people probably don't have that much time. If that's what you meant.
Why not throw away a dime?
I throw away ten pennies all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Voting makes sense only if it is anonimous. Otherwise it would be "I voted for you, you vote for me".
I vote pro drink ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Currently though its a "I say something you don't like in the lounge so you vote 20 1's"
Getting rid of the anonymous ratings should eliminate that.
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"Smile your little smile, take some tea with me awhile.
And every day we'll turn another page.
Behind our glass we'll sit and look at our ever-open book,
One brown mouse sitting in a cage."
"One Brown Mouse" from Heavy Horses, Jethro Tull 1978
|
|
|
|
|
James T. Johnson wrote:
Getting rid of the anonymous ratings should eliminate that.
 I didnt know anonymous voting is allowed.
This sucks!!!
Just about any idot can click on 1 and then on [vote]
No wonder!!!!!
Nish 
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous voting hasn't been allowed for several months.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
Anonymous voting hasn't been allowed for several months
Whew. It is a huge relief to hear that...
Nish
I am the Keyboard Smasher
|
|
|
|
|
I see Chris replied already, but when I said anonymous I was meaning anonymous in that you don't know who voted what.
James
Sonork ID: 100.11138 - Hasaki
"I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said - I'm not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays."
"Wind Up" from Aqualung, Jethro Tull 1971
|
|
|
|
|
fair point. but do you have an idea that would discourage the problem of people giving low votes for no (apparent) reason?
-c
Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
You're the icing - on the cake - on the table - at my wake. Modest Mouse
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe enable only silver members (and up) to vote, but still anonimously.
I vote pro drink
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
