|
one word: "WHAT?"
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my homepage Oracle Studios
Discounted or Free Software for Students:
DreamSpark - downloads.channel8.msdn.com
MSDN Academic Alliance - www.msdnaa.com
|
|
|
|
|
Well I think it has not to be 100% anonimous... Just save the name of publisher internally for CP control as always but not showing it on the article as long is not approved.
I think it could be a bit helpfull for some begginer article posters that can get the feedback without being ashamed on the feedback itself. I mean, first article post, lots of bad comments (but well justified) about the article and the autor can be "marked" as "bad/crappy/..." coder or something like that and be placed in "not read anymore" list of other users, so it affects him in future aproaches or different articles. Everyone can have a bad day/idea and not showing (but being known) the autor's name could be helpfull for some that cases.
Trolling and crappy articles will anyways come further, but if you can help some of genuin (but bad executed) tries... I don't find it bad
Regards.
--------
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
“The First Rule of Program Optimization: Don't do it. The Second Rule of Program Optimization (for experts only!): Don't do it yet.” - Michael A. Jackson
Rating helpfull answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you have good idea here: to submit article for comments, not for publication. There would be no voting, just comments, so author can improve article, and see if article is good or bad idea, and then fix article and submit for publication.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: I think you have good idea here: to submit article for comments, not for publication.
I would love to see this implemented. Sort of like a Beta release for articles submitted for peer review.
I have several articles I am working on and once in awhile, I would like to solicit advice or ask for a point of clarification. And, I wouldn't mind putting together a few "experimental" articles for the purpose of peer review. If the idea didn't work out, I could refine it or scrap the idea all together.
When finally submitted for publication, the article would start with a clean slate with all the previous comments wiped.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
Chris, what do you think? - a "peer review" article submittal, no voting, just comments, and the peer review comments are dropped when article is submitted for publication.
|
|
|
|
|
I second that.
I would like to add a (possibly selectable) deadline though, so after that they either get published or discarded.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: submit article for comments, not for publication. There would be no voting, just comments, so author can improve article, and see if article is good or bad idea, and then fix article and submit for publication.
I like that idea. It could to an extent clear out some of the junk articles floating around.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
1) I can see many benefits to this. An article could be worked on and finalized without being scrutinized during the Moderation phase of posting. However this could lead to abuse of the system. Solution: a possible expiration period for when 'saved' articles remain on the site
2) No, the current system is their for a reason. If you want the HTML, either compile it outside of the CodeProject and insert it, or get the HTML as soon as it is posted.
3) Anonymous contributions are pretty much pointless. People who develop good articles want to be recognized for their works. People who do not want to be recognized for their works often have articles that are not up to par with regards to the rest of the community.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my homepage Oracle Studios
Discounted or Free Software for Students:
DreamSpark - downloads.channel8.msdn.com
MSDN Academic Alliance - www.msdnaa.com
|
|
|
|
|
Chris - do we really need this[^] user. I would say that his recent postings breach site rules.
|
|
|
|
|
Especially the one about Flash mobbing Paris should be reported to French authorities if it is credible.
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
marketing drivel dreamed up my those
change "my" to "by" 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Oops 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I took a hand at approving some articles today and discovered most of them were stuck there because they were crappy but what all the truly immediately obviously crappy ones had in common is that they contained the template text in them.
It would behoove you to automatically scan for template text in the article then bump it back to the submitter if it contains any with an explanation and prevent it from even getting submitted.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly what I was going to suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I suggested this several months ago, to no avail.
I am currently developing an app that does this and more.
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, sorry, I didn't see that suggestion.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
No problem.
Unfortunately, noboby picked up the idea; so I am coding away right now.
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: It would behoove you to automatically scan for template text in the article then bump it back to the submitter if it contains any with an explanation and prevent it from even getting submitted
We tried this but don't have an effective way of scanning. I've tried a couple of algorithms but overall nothing was reliable enough to really make a difference.
I'm always happy to try new algorithms
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand, you're simply looking for your own templates phrases. If a submitted article contains the phrase "(Optional) Is there any background to this article that may be useful such as an introduction to the basic ideas presented? " or "Did you learn anything interesting/fun/annoying while writing the code? Did you do anything particularly clever or wild or zany? " it is clearly not ready to be submitted.
Or do you mean dealing with some other aspect of it?
It doesn't have to be 100% reliable, it can err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt but if either of those phrases appears exactly as they are then it's clearly not something the author intended to say in their article. A simple string search would find them in an instant and weed out the worst.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Hi John,
there are a few small issues, such as:
- it must be safe, there should not be false positives, rejecting perfectly good articles;
- there is a lot of stuff added to an article, even the crappiest article yields 50KB of HTML code
right now. I see quite some opportunities to use Regex here!
- of course, the article content can be aything, and the HTML generated by CP seems like a heavily
moving target, so defensive programming is required.
|
|
|
|
|
I must be missing something big here because this problem seems ultra trivial to resolve.
It's *never* a false positive if any of the strings I quoted from the template higher up in this thread are present.
For Chris and co. they can simply compare the statistically improbable phrases of the current template to the article if any are present then send it back to the submitter to complete it properly. Easy peasy as far as I can see.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree simply testing for a few sentences could improve things.
For a while. It would soon teach the crappy-article-authors to discard those
template sentences, rendering their articles even shorter and sillier.
In the mean time I have finished my first test tool, and sent it to Chris.
It checks those sentences, but also for the presence of download files, images,
code snippets, and reasonnable title and article length.
That will make it harder to get a crappy article trough, while not hindering
any of the regular articles.
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to check specifically for sentences. However, I don't want to be hardcoding anything - I want an algorithm that will take the template, take an article, and tell me how likely it is that the article contains major portions of the template. Any major (complete sentence, say) at any point in the article. This means that I have to make the template well-worded enough so that it doesn't contain sentences that may legitimately appear in an article.
Or I can look for just whole sections of the template, defined as anything from a H2 to a block-type element that isn't P. A single character can throw this off so it needs to be flexible.
In the end it's a basic Diff algorithm but I just don't have one handy, and at the moment we have more important bugs to squash so have been resorting to the tried-and-true check-moderation-queue-and-delete-the-duds algorithm.
Basically I need more hours in the day.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris - my apologies if my small attempt at code to weed out the crap wasn't up to snuff.
|
|
|
|
|
No apologies needed Pete. You know the law about making something idiot proof and the Universe just making a better idiot...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
