|
It certainly seems it. I periodically go through Colins posts and 5 vote items where he's been voted down and it's clear that he has actually given good value for money in his post.
|
|
|
|
|
What I was wondering is, if this wrong one othes have an effect on his possibility to be an MVP next time?
Or is it like the "Message score threshold" only valid after 3 or more persons voted on the message?
All the best,
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
In Message Editor, when you select Ignore HTML tags in this message (good for code snippets), even the signature is getting disturbed. That should not right?
|
|
|
|
|
This is by design. If your sig has HTML and you choose to post a message with no HTML then the HTML is removed from your sig so it doesn't screw up the message.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Chris.
Now I recall one bug with Outlook also when HTML formatting corrupts the attachments (ASCII Text attachments) and GIFs particularly when used with Connectors like Domino.
|
|
|
|
|
Can somebody see why the threads with this subject ("CodeProject Bloggers") are scattered across?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that everyone should have a voting quota - They would not be able to vote any more than X times per day. I think this would solve (or at least reduce) the drive-by one votes.
Upcoming events:
* Glasgow: Mock Objects, SQL Server CLR Integration, Reporting Services, db4o, Dependency Injection with Spring ...
"I wouldn't say boo to a goose. I'm not a coward, I just realise that it would be largely pointless."
My website
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Colin,
that does not sound right to me. Maybe someone wants to read every article/message and
cast a vote for it. Nothing wrong so far; it may start to go wrong if those votes tend to
have a strange distribution (all ones, all fives).
My first attempt: everyone can cast votes, the deviations from 3 get accumulated and this sum
must remain in some range, say (-10,+10). So one can vote a 1 and then a 5 as many times as
one likes. The sum could be reset periodically (say once a week).
Another attempt: how about collecting statistics on the votes given by someone
(and also, but separately, the votes given to someone), and showing this information
on the "About Member" page ? That might keep most people in line.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Luc Pattyn wrote: My first attempt: everyone can cast votes, the deviations from 3 get accumulated and this sum
must remain in some range, say (-10,+10). So one can vote a 1 and then a 5 as many times as
one likes. The sum could be reset periodically (say once a week).
Don't like this one, cause I tend to Up-vote good answers, instead of down-vote someone.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Another attempt: how about collecting statistics on the votes given by someone
(and also, but separately, the votes given to someone), and showing this information
on the "About Member" page ? That might keep most people in line.
This is a great idea, hope it will be implemented.
All the best,
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Martin,
Martin# wrote: Don't like this one, cause I tend to Up-vote good answers, instead of down-vote someone
I understand that, but maybe you should down-vote bad articles, messy stuff, wrong answers
as much as you upvote good, clean, correct entries. Anyway, all is relative, so the
idea was you have to take some in order to be able to give some (or give some, so you
can take some?).
Anyway, as long as votes are free, you could vote 5 for all but a few entries; that's
a lot of work to indicate you did not like those few entries...
BTW I am happy with a 4 too.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Luc,
Luc Pattyn wrote: so the
idea was you have to take some in order to be able to give some
Now I understand the idea better.
Hmmm, would mean a little changing in my behaviour but I think the idea of "peronal rating balance" is something I could like.
For that reason I would suggest a fancy symbol at the user profile which tells me the actual value.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Anyway, as long as votes are free, you could vote 5 for all but a few entries; that's
a lot of work to indicate you did not like those few entries...
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of: "that's
a lot of work to indicate you did not like those few entries"
Maybe you could use other words.
Luc Pattyn wrote: BTW I am happy with a 4 too.
All the best,
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Martin, if there are say 10 entries in total, and you vote 5 for 9 of them because you
like them, it would be a lot easier to downvote the single one you did not like. That
is what I meant to say.
Greetings
|
|
|
|
|
Ok Luc,
But that's excactly the point, why I didn't liked the idea at first.
I think I than would faster vote a "1" in this situation, for an article which normaly would get my "3".
So, like I said before, it would need my changing of rating behaviour, to make this system run fair.
All the best,
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: how about collecting statistics on the votes given by someone
(and also, but separately, the votes given to someone)
Great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to catch the Yahoo Answers style? 
|
|
|
|
|
Another idea might be to take the user's average vote into account when assigning the final score -- if my average vote is a 1, this gets normalized towards 3, if my average vote is a 5, this gets normalized towards 3 as well.
This also encourages people who only vote 5s to vote on other things as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Phil,
you are right of course, a self-calibrating vote could be an improvement;
but poor Chris will soon need another vacation if we keep throwing good ideas
at him...
And there is a problem with the articles/messages one does not vote for:
with your proposal people MUST vote on almost everything they read.
Proof: say someone skips voting when "fair" or "good", but he votes 4 for "very good"
and 5 for "excellent", (and lets currently ignore a rather infrequent 1 for "terrible");
assuming for a moment an equal amount of fours and fives, those become something
like 2.5 and 3.5 after calibration, hence an implicit 3 ("fair/good") would fall
in between "very good" and "excellent" ??
And if one treats all non-votes as 3, then those implicit threes would be the vast
majority (assuming most members read only a small fraction of articles/messages)
and one would not see any differentiation any more.
Hence: people should always vote, and intend a non-vote as "don't care"
or "no opinion", but certainly not as "fair" or "good" or "average".
That would be quite a change in habits, I havent seen much threes, and I think
I never gave one.
|
|
|
|
|
One might also see an increase in people throwing 1s or 5s on random messages just so their "score" stays close to average. There would be major tweaking required with a system like this, and I think it's more trouble than it's worth.
I would rather see voting done away with, with an option of flagging a message/article as exceptional (so the number of exceptionals would determine your ranking, with no option for a univoter to strike). Of course you would still leave the ability to flag a message as abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds good to me. Currently I use 4/5 for something good, 1 for something very bad and abuse for .. .well ... abusive posts :P
I use 4/5 quite a lot but hardly ever reach for the 1 so doing away with the numbers and just having "exceptional" would be perfect
|
|
|
|
|
I think there has been, conservatively, a shitload (probably more) of suggestions on how to deal with voting and all manner of other things, time for someone to "nut up" and implement something already.
"I don't want more choice. I just want better things!" - Edina Monsoon
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
We do have the option to mark our post as "general,fun/Joke,question,news" before actually posting it. Why not you provide the same for "search comments" page? this would help the "search" function to filter out the rest of the type and thus resulting on a faster search. We can also have a fifth option "ALL" in case the user doesn't know the type of the message. This would scan through all the messages without filters.Like the idea?
|
|
|
|
|
it took me a couple of months to find the "search comments" thingy in the first place;
the big Search box on the top of the page was drawing my attention (but not returning
any forum threads).
I would like to suggest to add "Discussion Forums" to the combobox that currently
only says "Articles" and "Authors", maybe, just maybe, in doing so some of the questions
(and their replies) will not appear over and over again.
And maybe there should be a way to search both Articles and Discussion Forums in a
single operation, like "I'm stuck on SerialPort, show me all about it".
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I would like to suggest to add "Discussion Forums" to the combobox that currently
only says "Articles" and "Authors", maybe, just maybe, in doing so some of the questions
(and their replies) will not appear over and over again
Excellent.I guess Chris would like it.
|
|
|
|
|
I like that idea.
Brad
Australian
- "Bash.org" on "The opposite of Love"
<+pf_work> what's the opposite of <3?
<Lokii> h8
<Rodry> </3
<sdoherty> >3
<Lems> !<3
|
|
|
|
|
sounds useful.
Brad
Australian
- "Bash.org" on "The opposite of Love"
<+pf_work> what's the opposite of <3?
<Lokii> h8
<Rodry> </3
<sdoherty> >3
<Lems> !<3
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
