|
|
It seems that you get 2 'Editor' reputation points for editing your own answer - seems wrong to me!
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
modified on Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Technically you are self editing, but say you have a thought sometime later that would be an improvement, making it easier for others, is that not beneficial?
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but this is open to massive abuse. You get the points for answering (not editor points) and more if it's upvoted or marked as answer. That should be enough IMO.
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the bad thing is you don't get anything for updating your own article. Publish & move on?
IMO there should be some points awarded, with a limit of once a day (yes, I know, I'm against time-related limits, however here it does make some sense).
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: however here it does make some sense
Why?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Well,
1. I'm against time limits in general as they tend to stifle activity;
2. however updates should be rewarded, as they represent an effort to improve something.
But then there are the victims, the people who don't want to read the same article (and download and test the associated code) more than once a day. It is similar to CP having a daily newsletter, not a newsletter whenever a new article gets published. Low-pass filters can be useful, as long as they don't limit normal use.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: you don't get anything for updating your own article
I'm not sure you should...
When it comes to articles, I think the major thing lacking is that all members who have previously voted should get an email informing them of any updates (with an opt out of course) as often the premise that their vote was based on, particularly for low votes, no longer stands as it has been addressed in the update.
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
|
I just launched my third update on CP Vanity[^], which only exists for one week now. I fixed a few shortcomings, some major and some minor; some reported, some I discovered myself; and all this although the community had been very kind to the very first version of it.
Not rewarding such improvements could hamper final quality when authors are less obstinate. 
|
|
|
|
|
DaveyM69 wrote: all members who have previously voted should get an email informing them of any updates
yes, that is a valid point. I did reply to each comment I got on version V1.0 when I released the next viable version. That was only some six people, so not too hard to do manually; I added the same message to all of them, thanking them as they really helped me improve things. I'm not convinced this should be automatic; if it is, IMO it should be opt-in. And is "watched items" not covering this already? Maybe clicking "bookmark this" should pop the question: "watch or not?".
|
|
|
|
|
The thinking here is that you should definitely get edit points if you update your own article, and also if you update your own Tip n' Trick. Continuing, if you answer a question and then realise there is more to provide, you should get edit points, in the same way that if you edit someone else's answer - even just to clean it up. This same logic applies to editing the original question as well.
The trick is we need to implement an automatic way to detect if an edit is a minor or a major edit. In fact even defining "minor" and "major" is a debate in itself.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough - a feature 
DaveIf this helped, please vote & accept answer!
Binging is like googling, it just feels dirtier. (Pete O'Hanlon)
BTW, in software, hope and pray is not a viable strategy. (Luc Pattyn)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In personal list, instead of color coding the box... a green colored tick mark appears next to the question title if the answer is marked as accepted.
I believe the reason why the box is not marked as green in personal page is:
The box is showing green color(in Q&A section) based on question closed or not. What we need in personal page is whether 'my answer' was accepted or not. So to show that, a green tick mark is used. I guess the difference is as by design! 
modified on Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
you're right, however
1) I missed that, it does not stand out
2) so it is a green tick on the answers tab, and a YellowGreen background on the questions tab and everywhere else; why such inconsistency? I see no reason for it.
|
|
|
|
|
This(perosnal page answer accepted indicator) was implemented recently (not with Q&A color coding)...
i asked of how i can know whether my answer was accepted and i came to know that this green tick thing is implemented for that.
Luc Pattyn wrote: why such inconsistency
Chris or someone known to it might reply well to this... for now it just looks like if the box is green in 'personal page' it might confuse user as if his answer was accepted or just anyones.
(Currently, green box means question was resolved, some answer accpeted. If user think on the same line while opening 'personal answers', it might look confusing as if it was his answer or someone elses.)
Though, a more intelligent way would had been... in my perosonal page showing greenbox to only those ones that has my answer as accpeted. Few might argue on 'this can create confusion' but this to me looks more consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
So we need two colors, one (YellowGreen) for "some answer accepted" and another one (Green) for "this answer accepted"; plus a legend explaining this.
|
|
|
|
|
Inconsistency isn't good. We'll get that fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been fixed. Uploading soon.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Lately i had observed that the question locked for edition mechanism is not working correctly. Intially 10 min lock is there, and probably when its over it should be available back for editing if needed. I was looking at this one:http://www.codeproject.com/answers/69052/try-to-get-answer.aspx[^]
I tried to edit and got already locked by someone. But the lock expire time shown was "-7 min"!
Looks like some issue and needs verification!
for reference...screenshot sent to Chirs/Webmaster...
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Sounds like a server has a bad clcok. I've put some code in to test for this.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author rep points in the graph and on the professional profile page still dont match in some cases.
Is this a caching issue?
|
|
|
|
|
As I remember it from Chris' earlier reply:
Most or all rep points are earned and tallied right away, however the graph is cached; if you don't navigate away from your "Professional Profile", it won't change, clicking the tabs is not sufficient to get an update.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
