|
"Inappropriate" is a subjective view.
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: "Inappropriate" is a subjective view.
Yeah, it sure is. So eventually what'll work is for Chris to select a group of moderators who will mostly share his views on what's appropriate and what's not.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: what'll work is for Chris to select a group of moderators who will mostly share his views on what's appropriate and what's not.
Now that is downright scary. 
-----------------------------
Just along for the ride.
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Many (perhaps most) of the inappropriate threads are ironically started by Platinum status members.
I dare say that you didn't think of me a little when you wrote this. 
You are one of the very few members on this site that I respect and have watched and learned from for many years before I became "active" here. I have been coming to this site for about 7 years now but have only participated in the last 3+ years as Slacker007. A lot of the members here are pretentious, self serving slobs. However, you, Pete, John, and a few others have been main stays here and have always been real.
If you think this is a bad idea then you are probably right.
--Cheers.
-----------------------------
Just along for the ride.
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: You are one of the very few members on this site that I respect and have watched
and learned from for many years before I became "active" here. I have been
coming to this site for about 7 years now but have only participated in the last
3+ years as Slacker007.
You've posted this to Nish by mistake. 
Slacker007 wrote: A lot of the members here are pretentious, self serving slobs
Thank You 
|
|
|
|
|
Ᵽompey wrote: You've posted this to Nish by mistake.
I don't think so.
I originally came to this site a long time ago to learn and to be with my fellow programmers and not to be the controversial a**hole I am today. I do respect Nish and a select few others here for reasons I don't fully wish to explain now. Nish may not care for my antics (deep down inside) but that doesn't stop me from being who I am and how I feel about things. I call it as I see it.
-----------------------------
Just along for the ride.
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
I know, I like to give him a bit of banter from time to time. Top Bloke.
Slacker007 wrote: Nish may not care for my antics (deep down inside)
He just takes awhile to warm to you thats all.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I dare say that you didn't think of me a little when you wrote this.
 No, I didn't! Sorry if it sounded that way.
Slacker007 wrote: If you think this is a bad idea then you are probably right.
I don't think the idea is completely bad, I just think that Platinum status is not good enough to be able to trust a member to do this maturely. I'd prefer it if Chris hand-picked a dozen or so members and gave them forum moderation rights. That would work better than what you suggested (in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's to the point where all I'm doing is inspecting a small, smoking hole where the account used to be.
Thank you guys!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I've noticed that my blog feed hasn't been polled since 16th June? Is there a problem with the blog feeds at the moment, or have I set something up wrong?
Please advise.
MBigglesworth79
|
|
|
|
|
I'll try and dig in tomorrow. There's another blog which is also refusing to be pulled. I'll dig in and see what's happening.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I removed my blog feed and re-added it again. That seems to have solved the problem. 
|
|
|
|
|
I have just published this article[^] via the online submission wizard (first try and it works really well). However, when using the Browse Code tab I find that a number of files which should be browsable are not. These include ones with the following extensions:
.reg a file containing registry import data relevant to the article
.vcproj a VS2008 project file
.vcxproj[.*] VS2010 project files
I'm not sure how you check whether a file should be browsable online but may I request that the foregoing be added to the list?
The best things in life are not things.
|
|
|
|
|
Too easy. I'll have the code updated hopefully later tomorrow.
Hang on - later today. That time already?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed a download is now only worth 1 point. Have you also implemented the code that reduces back-dated downloads (and adds in as-yet uncounted ones?
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Currently running the rep repopulation script. It should be done by this evening, but before the results are locked in I'll review to ensure they are sensible. Expect a big jump.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
What is your rationale for reducing downloads to 1 point, when bookmarks earn 5 points? Shouldn't downloads be worth at least as much as bookmarks? In fact, as a positive indicator, it would seem that downloading takes more effort and shows more interest in the article than a bookmark.
Whatever points you assign, IMHO downloading should earn twice the points of a bookmark, assuming you want these points to have some meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a delicate balance of give and take, and I don't envy Chris the position of deciding how to approach it because there's always going to be someone that complains. That being said...
Let's take for instance the case of one .dan.g., author of the rabidly popular todo list article, currently with 122,742 downloads. At 10 points per view (by your suggestion), that would be 1.2 MILLION points for just one article's downloads, and he's got an additional 12,000 points just for bookmarks. Even at the current 5 points per download, that would be a gain of close to 500K points. Now, let's look at the rest of dan's stats:
16 articles (counting the big one described above)
1 Q/A question *asked*
7500 Forum messages
That's it, yet he has over 127,000 points, based almost solely on one article. In fact, checking his forum messages, the vast bulk of them are connected to that one article as well, and even the single question he asked is directly connected with updating that one article.
Now, dan currently has over 127,000 rep points, and he will undoubtedly get more points when the download re-calc is completed.
Now, let's change to a different user:
John Simmons / Outlaw Programmer (298,300 rep points)
46 articles
24,200 Forum messages
22 Questions asked
3,100 Questions answered
43 tips (and alternates)
1270 Comments
Now, anyone with any power of observation at all would recognize that dan really doesn't contribute a lot to the site. Even with the stats he DOESN'T have, he's got almost half as many points as I do - derived almost completely from a single article. By all accounts, I *should* have more points than Dan, but if we were to see 5 points per download, I would realize MAYBE a 60-80,000 point gain (with your points suggestion), shooting me up above 300K points, but dan would pass ALL of us - just from a single article.
Personally, I don't really feel that's equitable unless Chris renames CopeProject to "ToDoList.com". We all contribute the best we can, and we get rep points for doing it. Yes, it would be disheartening to be overtaken and passed by a WIDE margin by an obviously under-contributing user, especially with all of the effort I put in, but life's a shit sandwich, and every day I have to take a bite out of it.
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Hear Hear.
It is the breadth of contributions as well as the depth.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
That's a very interesting analysis. To counter that, a possible solution would be to limit the number of points awarded for the download of one article. (e.g. do not count up after, for instance, the 50,000th downloads). The actual number of downloads could still be a way to evaluate the article, but do not enter in the rep count.
Actually, the real question is: what is reputation ? Should a. regular contributors be awarded points, or b. great contribution, even if it is a one shot ?
To me, it is clearly a. In fact reputation should indicate how much I can trust the posts of one person. If someone writes a complete drivel app written in poor code which will be downloaded seven million times because it is _the_ idea of the century, does it make its author a "reputable" person in the rest of the forum ...?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really after a solution. Limiting points for any reason isn't the answer (I don't think). I was merely pointing out that with very little effort, someone could gain A LOT of points. Now, dan certainly takes care of his article, with regular updates and answering questions, so that, in and of itself is participation, but he's doing so to the almost total exclusion of the rest of what the site is about. And that's fine. I'm pretty sure that he's the only user here that generates a lopsided reputation score like that, and to change the system for one person is beyond ludicrous.
I'm glad we don't get points for views. He has 4 million on that one article alone. 
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
May I suggest a multiplier. 1 point per download times the number of articles posted perhaps.
Ger
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting that Chris change anything. I was just highlighting this one situation (of which I'm pretty sure is the only one of it's kind). No changes need to be made. the system is what it is and we should just let it be.
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
and it is an awesome tool, not speaking about the code which is also very well written/maintained. 