|
When I voted (and I haven't since the need to supply a reason was put in place) I only voted 1 or 5; I see no reason for the 2, 3, or 4.
|
|
|
|
|
You said it!
I think any voting system where you can't vote negatively is worthless - it's just becomes meaningless noise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The data would be more complete with perhaps the total number of articles in the same period, the average score and the median score.
One of my issues is that there are so many articles and tips with much higher rating but of poorer quality than some of those on that list
|
|
|
|
|
Stop showing us actual data! That's not how internet discussions work, you should know that! 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jorgen,
I think the demographics of CP have changed a lot since the 8+ years you have been a member, or the 13 years I've been a member here; so, I think it's only natural for what voting "means" for many members ... absent any method of ensuring "voter qualifications" and consistency (gods forbid !) ... to change.
I agree with you that what exists now is less than as meaningful as it could be, and I personally favor mandatory disclosure of author's name on both up- and down- votes ... at least as an experiment to see if article/tip quality improves.
But, vis-a-vis articles and tips, what I see happening is that far too many very low-quality pieces are getting published in the first place.
Over time, I believe, the reputation of CodeProject has changed so it has become a place where it is perceived that anyone (at any level of understanding, accomplishment) can publish an article just to have the fact of that on their resume. And, so, the sheer volume of submitted articles makes it impossible to have really detailed pre-publication screening ... in spite of heroic efforts by CP staff and current members active in article moderation.
Maybe if we had 10,000 members active in article moderation every week that would be different ?
And, that, imho, takes us into the quagmire of "who puts the bell on the cat," or, in fancier terms, "quis custodiet custodes."
I think there might be many of us that feel/think we should do something more on CP to help out with article moderation, but see that as requiring so much time and bandwidth that it would interfere with our own creative work for publication on CP, and with helping-out on QA, not to mention the time and energy available for our personal lives, and other areas of activity.
So, while I am willing to vote on articles/tips, and have my name published with the vote, and, possibly, become the target of some retaliation, I am not willing to spend energy in a back-and-forth dialogue with someone who has submitted a half-baked article explaining to them why its content is hopelessly confused, or inaccurate.
Up-voting by friends and followers: that will never go away; down-voting based on grudges, or biases; that ain't going away.
Should the vote of a member have more, or less, influence/ranking based on their rep or status ? I think so, but, then, you will have the "edge cases" of a very high-rep/status member behaving in a biased or irresponsible way. If you believe in crowd-sourced "wisdom" averaging out for the better, well, maybe that's the thing to trust ... but, then, you gotta have a crowd.
One very different (in my mind) strategy here is to focus on how we "elevate" the best of CP content, including the best QA questions, and answers, so that it "floats above" other content in similar categories.
Right now, I have at least fifty CP articles bookmarked (in Chrome) sorted into various bookmark folders: I often refer to these as the "crown jewels" 
Imagine that we could somehow have a "hall of fame" where the most bookmarked articles of one million CP users were ranked by topic ?
Just an idea.
cheers, Bill
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
An excellent summary, a simple yes would suffice as an answer.
But I actually have one comment: I feel that your idea of using bookmarks for measuring actual usefulness of the articles is a good idea, but as soon as people know about it, it will be broken too.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: a simple yes would suffice as an answer
I never met a simple "yes"
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
I absolutely agree. On a scale of 1-5, 1 should mean awful, 3 average and 5 excellent.
When there's only 4.5 to 5.0, it all becomes fairly pointless. Does the voting influence what appears on the front page? If so it's not just pointless, but destructive.
As it stands, I'd prefer to see voting go. Obsession with popularity is just another manifestation of vanity.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The voting system has evolved to require justification for votes of 3 or lower.
I have twice suggested that we change over to a "mark as useful" arrangement (previous article votes of 4 or 5 can be translated to "useful", and lower votes are not counted at all). The new "identification of voters" idea would be reduced to something like "John Simmons/Outlaw Programmer found this article useful". CP staff don't appear to be receptive to that idea.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Just thinking loud here...
How about a few more dimensions, like:
Mark as Useful
Mark as Educational
Mark as Inventive
And the other side of it
Mark as Pointless (There are better ways of doing it)
Mark as Reinvented (There are already 47 articles covering this subject)
And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not useful, why even vote on it? that's my whole point. Allowing a user to "mark as useful" would even allow more graphs to be generated, such as a pie graph showing levels of users that found it useful.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are Welcome
|
|
|
|
|
Abhishek Nandy wrote: although I think still I am a big zero generally an okay guy and have to learn a lot
Sounds a lot better, not to cocky, but still a little confidence 
Congratulations!
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations Abhishek !
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
You are Welcome
|
|
|
|
|
That's great news, congrats Abhishek! ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
Kevin Priddle
Editor and Special Projects Manager - CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
You are Welcome
|
|
|
|
|
Abhishek, it has been a genuine pleasure to be part of your journey as you progress in your career. I'm proud to have been able to play some small part, and I look forward to seeing what you do next.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in California and I've been working on a project for a company in Canada for 2 years.
I've had no contact with my client since the first. If I had to guess, I'd have to say he's decided to cancel the project. It's $hitty way to do it, but it's his choice.
Problem is, neither I nor the other guy on project have been paid.
[UPDATE]
Problem is, neither I nor the other guy on project have been paid since the first.
I'm considering remoting and removing the DB and click-once.
I'm open to how you would deal with this.
modified 12-Jan-15 14:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Did YOU contacted client? Do it first. Ask...
If not other you can gain a bad name around the client...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Do NOT do any damage to the system - even though you wrote it and they didn't pay you this would still be considered a serious matter. (Think law enforcement serious).
IMHO, better to write a letter asking what the status is of the project and payment, and send it to the company by registered post. If it is a large company it is likely that the payment just fell between the gaps in the procurement process...
Then - wait a couple of weeks and if you don't hear back better call Saul.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
