|
yes.It's time to nuke him
To learn all there is to know. I know I'll be disappointed one day, but I've made a good start, and the eventual disappointment is likely to be brief.
-Roger Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a Thoroughly Modern Man: 2007 is, like, the dark ages, innit blood?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - that's a known "exploit". 
They aren't normally that blatant - but then they aren't normally that stupid.
It's abuse, and he's abusing the site: report both.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I really think this is a big problem. I detected a number of members who abused the possibility of self-answering. Worse, some even self-accept such "answers", which I call cheating.
Unfortunately, many of my reports did not convince enough CodeProject members. Only in few cases the abusers were banned. I've received suggestion that I might have over-reported some cases. Since that time, I only warn such members, and few of them took my warnings pretty aggressively ("What are you talking about! Nobody could answer my question, so I had to answer myself", something like that, or worse). I suggested to remove the possibility to self-answer from CodeProject UI, or at least the self-accepting. Such change would not hurt anyone, because, if some member have some good finding on her/his own question, nothing prevents such person from publishing a small Tips&Trips article on the topic, and, if such article is not appropriate, no one is really interested to see how some member creates a stupid mistake and later "fixes" the problem.
Don't you think we still have to raise this problem?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the above case was a misuse of the possibilites provided here, and that should be "discouraged".
But providing an answer on one's own question can be appropriate: if an underlying problem was solved, and the answer is likely to help others with a similar problem; and the question ought to be marked "closed" somehow then - not necessarily the answer "accepted", just some way to show that no further answer is required. If the problem was a typo only, I'd prefer a "comment" instead of an "answer", plus such a closing of the question.
Answering one's own question (and even accepting that own answer) is also possible on StackOverflow.
Perhaps not giving rep points for the answer and accepting it (but still for others' upvotes on it) could help reduce the problem. A JavaScript alert telling that fact to the user might be necessary for those who otherwise won't believe it...
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that it can be appropriate. Sure. My idea is: it is not really important. Well, self-accepting does not make sense, but I can understand why such possibility exists.
It would be all right if not abuses. Unfortunately, inappropriate self-answering is pretty usual, and this is similar to the case you just reported.
I can explain where it comes from. I look at the past member's post if I see some especially stupid question. A bad question is a real reason to check up for re-posts, and, in, general, to see "what else such artist could ask"? And, pretty often, if there are many bad questions, you could see a number of "answers". This is where many non-answers, or, worse, fake answers are found.
Can you see the point? And I explained why not having self-answers at all would not hurt reasonable and nice-playing members.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
|
This: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=10657037[^]
Is spamming QA - I've cleaned the questions out, but he needs to be kicked back into his van.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like the name 'spam bot', it gives me the wrong vibes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
user in 4 of 5
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
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questionable questions deleted. Member needs a few more kicks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the article has mysteriously disappeared (oops! Nothing to do with me, gov! The "Delete key pressed itself!)
Here is the author: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=10653188[^]
Let's lose a little digital weight, and dispose of him...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
This: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=10653078[^] ios poluting QA again - I've cleaned up the spill - but let's ride him outta town on a rail!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
