|
Gerd Wagner wrote: Isn't it contradicting the idea of the "alternative article" feature if the author of the original article can vote against an "alternative article"?
Of course it isn't. There's an assumption in that idea that alternatives will always be better. This isn't the case, and we shouldn't be treating it as such.
I will add that the author in question does not always react too well to critique.
modified 26-Feb-15 12:31pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerd Wagner wrote: In this way he can prevent that the criticism of his article is perceived/read by the site's readers
He can't - he can merely express his opinion.
Let the votes sort themselves out. You have one downvote. You have many more upvotes.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
How come there aren't any comments to go with the 1 votes? That seems a bit odd.
|
|
|
|
|
That what I don't understand ! It seems a bug
Wonde Tadesse
|
|
|
|
|
I just checked Chris's blog. Downvotes no longer require a justification.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Downvotes no longer require a justification
Uh oh! 
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. This is not going to end well.
|
|
|
|
|
Why should there be restrictions on who votes? Are you saying you can vote on theirs and they can't vote on yours (hypothetically)?
Is this really an "alternative" article? It seems to misrepresent itself. You have just addressed 3 points you take issue with. Many articles have comments which are just as long and give the author of the original article the opportunity to respond.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
> Why should there be restrictions on who votes?
Because biased, purely "political" votes are of no value (that's why someone linked to the victim or the defendant cannot be a member of the jury before court).
> You have just addressed 3 points you take issue with
The article tries to explain 3 OO concepts, and I point out one serious flaw in each of these three explanations and provide alternative explanations, which are in line with the UML.
Why shouldn't providing alternative explanations make an "alternative article"?
|
|
|
|
|
All votes are biased. That is the nature and purpose of voting. What you are talking about is censorship.
Depends on your definition of article. Your "article" is in my view at best a postscript or addendum. It is not an article in it's own right even though it calls itself the alternative article. It cannot be read on its own as an article.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
> All votes are biased. That is the nature and purpose of voting.
It's a pitty that you didn't get the point (of my comparison with jury votes).
> What you are talking about is censorship.
Come on, that's a weird allegation. You are confusing the meaning of the word "censorship", which refers to the "freedom of speech" (or article publication), but not to voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gerd,
I think you have fallen into the "trap" of "playing against another golfer" rather than playing the golf-course to try to achieve your "personal best."
Naked fact: there are lots of high-voted articles on CP that are absolute crap: I have not read the article by the "other" author, so I am not making any comment on their work by saying this. The why/how of these high-voted but low technical-quality articles is something I choose not to be interested in: I prefer to focus on making my contribution to CP (a very minor one, I assure you) meet my own quality standards.
I have reported several articles here in the past years that I've read that I thought were somewhere between inappropriate (should have been at best a Tip/Trick) and hopelessly incomprehensible ... and that was when you had to "sign" the report. I've also left a lot of feedback for article authors, particularly when I saw the article was their first: in the case that I thought the article had potential to be a good article.
While there's nothing wrong with your seeing an article here, and thinking it's inaccurate technically, and deciding you can explain it better, I think publishing an article that is primarily a rebuttal of what you think is inaccurate in the other article is not serving the "greater good" of CP: we get to see only the "low-hanging fruit" of your own thoughts/vision/understanding of UML rendered in the context of .NET.
And, it may not serve you in the sense that people may react more to your criticism of the other article than to your own thoughts/vision/understanding. I wonder if the lack of comments on your article at this time means anything ? ... I'm not sure it does.
So, what if you focused on writing an article (or a series of articles) aimed at people who have probably not understood UML modeling very well (I'm sure I am in that group). Educate us, starting with the fundamentals, including what is the basic value proposition ... what you get ... from learning UML, and using it.
By the way, there is often the expectation here that articles will provide some source code; I don't particularly care if an article does not have code, but some people may care.
cheers, Bill
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
No change password and profile in my setting
|
|
|
|
|
It is right there in the form of a link. Hover over and you will be able to see the form.
http://s27.postimg.org/lt3syoe43/Screenshot_668.png[^] See this link for guidance.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
...is not working. This happened after scroll is added.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
As I understood it, it now only works for blocks higher than 400px. And it only collapses the blocks to min 400px (which then adds the scrollbar)
|
|
|
|
|
If it is so, i would say former was better as now we can not collapse all the code e.g. what if there are 5 10 code blocks.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
This raises the question: What do you want the collapse block to do?
Do you want it to simply make stupid-long blocks manageable (but still readable) or do you want to actually hide all code blocks?
If the latter then it would be far better for me simply to add a "Hide Code" button at the top of each post that handles all code blocks in a given post.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Answer: Both, but I wouldn't restrict hiding code blocks to an "all or nothing" kind.
And I have some arguments why this makes sense for me:
1. Especially in articles there are kinda different types of code blocks, some more high level and others more low level. Depending how much I'm actually interested into the topic of the article I choose if I'm interested in the code, only the non-complex stuff or not care about the code at all. Having the possibility to collapse the more complex ones, helps then to keep the article more fluent (instead of having to search for the line where the article continues)
2. It's possible that you have multiple code blocks in a row, if you're dealing with different languages (example: html + css + js) which are used to solve a certain problem. Collapsing all but the one you're interested in makes it easier to follow, especially if there's text around those code blocks, that are explaining the content of those blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Marty wrote: Answer: Both
And both you now have.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: do you want to actually hide all code blocks?
Yes.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
What happens when you simply post a question without any obvious spam and update it? Here, obvious spam means something that can be detected by filters.
I saw a recent case where spammer was aware of filters i think. Question posted as normal and then updated with spam links. Once the question gets updated it should be again checked by filters. I'm not sure this functionality is already available or not.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Turns out I have a very old account that has since been replaced. Please delete my account.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
