|
Dalek Dave wrote: Hey I was serious, I found the EXE in the end, but it still wouldn't work.
You probably need the latest .NET framework.
|
|
|
|
|
It was build targeting .NET 2.0, shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: it still wouldn't work
You get what that always triggers: not informative, too vague.
If you're behind a firewall, make sure to have the config file next to the EXE.
if your firewall requires a password, read the article and adjust the source where indicated.
if none of that helps, open the project and run inside Visual Studio to see what is going on. The app logs in the output pane.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously though, what happened? How was there such a major fail?
------------------------------------
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 think approval ability was being based on the overall reputation score.
.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 something needs to be done.
Bringing reviewer numbers down to some 80 (35 platinum, <50 gold) which may include some inactive members, may not be the most effective measure:
- if one can reach silver, one can reach gold too;
- and I'm not sure what exactly happened; maybe the account got hijacked.
How about:
1. going after members that wrongfully approve inappropriate material;
2. improving the Article Wizard so some constructs never make it to the Article-Needing-Approval list (e.g. when there are more images than words); I'm convinced a 100 word minimum is way too liberal even for real article attempts.
3. giving golden+ authors an immediate removal option, or at least a put-in-quarantine option. That way the recent issue would have been covered up sooner.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we don't know what the prior reputation-based criteria was for being able to approve articles (maybe that should be added to the reputation FAQ). In the past, you could become gold simply by longevity. We have people here that have posted less than 500 messages, and no articles, but that have been here six years or more.
At this point, we really don't know how many people are gold or higher on any single reputation category.
Are there really currently fewer than 100 users that can approve articles? Out of almost 7 million? If that's the case, maybe authority score should be considered as well as author score. there are a lot of folks that have high authority, but low author, right?
.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
|
|
|
|
|
My best guess is gold author currently is the criterium for seeing and being able to approve articles-needing-approval, and AFAIK there are some 85 gold+platinum authors, that is what CPVanity tells me when I scan 5+5 pages of Who's Who.
The 7 million number applies to accounts, not people. I expect if Chris were to delete accounts that have never published an article nor more than one message, and never voted, the number would drop significantly. Only yesterday I discovered two fresh accounts with just a single and nonsensical message as a comment on some normal material.
I'm in favor of a real voting scheme for article approval; having a single person approve something does not seem right. I'd go for:
- only silver+ authors and silver+ authorities can see the articles-needing-approval;
- the ANA gets -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 points when voted 1,2,3,4,5; to be multiplied by 2 for silver, 4 for gold, 8 for platinum voter.
- the ANA needs 20 points to become public.
So one platinum 5 and one silver 5 is sufficient; five golden 4's is sufficient; etc.
But a down-vote makes publication much less likely.
And I suggest we get a quarantine button, so things can be hidden immediately, as opposed to the "remove" button which takes an unspecified amount of time (at least to the next working day?)
|
|
|
|
|
I might be advocating for myself here. Please bear.
How about having a bit complex rule for article approval? I am almost sure that I would never make to that level, so I will never be able to at least point out the problems with an article. So, how about letting few guys (based on some numbers) to at least provide comments on the articles needing approval if not approve it?
Right now, I don't have a clue how this can be realized but I hope someone out here can think of a good plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody came up with the genesis of a brilliant plan not so long ago...
|
|
|
|
|
We can certainly get complicated 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I would be interested if that lets me see the articles needing approval. 
I haven't approved any article yet and I don't think I ever will. But I have provided some feedback to few of the articles here. And I would be happy if I can get to do that again.
|
|
|
|
|
The author in question already has three highly rated articles published. Did he actually have to go through the article approval process or was he able to post that article directly through the wizard?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago, when I published my CP Vanity[^]article, I was a silver Author (after some 8 articles and being overall Gold for years); and I complained heavily about it, since that made my entry go to the Article-Needing-Approval list (without indicating such), for which I didn't have reading access (nor approval rights).
Chris promised to change that to silver but I could not confirm it had been changed, as since then I'm a golden Author. But now he changed it back to Gold.
You're right about the three normal articles that author had contributed; that was exactly why I suggested the possibility of his account being hijacked somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: You're right about the three normal articles that author had contributed; that was exactly why I suggested the possibility of his account being hijacked somehow.
Oops, I said the same thing to PJ without realizing you had already said that. 
|
|
|
|
|
No problem. Apparently we share the same view.
|
|
|
|
|
PJ Arends wrote: The author in question already has three highly rated articles published. Did he actually have to go through the article approval process or was he able to post that article directly through the wizard?
PJ,
I am sure his account got hacked. His other articles are all very very good. Or maybe some jerk co-worker played a perverted trick on him.
|
|
|
|
|
Hows about instituting a -1000 rep. point charge if you approve an article that is subsequently removed by the admins?
Cheers,
Drew.
|
|
|
|
|
I've edited two questions this morning where the user evidently pasted the text into the editor control. When they do that, it puts PRE tags around the pasted content (it's happened to me as well). The difference between me and these other users is that I know that regular message text doesn't need the PRE tags, and when I see the preview pane with an orange block of non-code text, I know it's wrong, and I fix it.
Sure, it's nice that the preview is forced on them, but that doesn't help when the person isn't "educated" as to proper CP posting techniques. I can't think of any good answer because the editor control is assuming that pasted text is code in an attempt to avoid the inevitable problems with pasting text that actually IS code. In this case, the editor control is too smart for its own good, but like I said, I don't have a solution for you.
.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
|
|
|
|
|
Three options I can think of
1. Make the code sniffer super amazingly foolproof smart.
2. Remove it altogether
3. Have a javascript popup when it thinks it detects code with a "This looks like code. Is it?" prompt
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that whatever you decide on won't be enough for some people.
Another solution is to have someone visit the user and slap them in the back of the head when they're about to do something stupid.
.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: Another solution is to have someone visit the user and slap them in the back of the head when they're about to do something stupid.
Sounds like an RSI lawsuit waiting to happen 
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Another solution is to have someone visit the user and slap them in the back of the head when they're about to do something stupid
We're actually hoping HTML5 / CSS3.0 will provide a little more flexibility in this area. You know how it'll be though: it'll work fine in IE8, completely fail in Chrome and in Firefox it'll slap the person next to them instead.
I hate this current lack of standards compliance, and the overall ambiguity of the standards in general.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How did this[^] get past the filters?!?
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
?
Yeah, WTF, how did that get through?
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
modified on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:55 PM
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
