Given the particularly high number of votes that it takes to close an article due to the sheer number of reasons to choose from, would it be possible to group them together behind the scenes so that 10 votes of a similar grouping is enough to close the article? As an example, if some people chose to close because it's the wrong type while others choose to close an article as poor quality, these would be grouped together. That way, we would lower the barrier to removing substandard articles and reduce the chance of some stinkers getting through.
Newly created accounts should not be able to vote for an article.!!
I often see (or guess/have suspicion) that authors, creates accounts to up vote their own articles. couldn't we make it so that, newly created accounts can't vote, untill they are an week old or something ?
When I say this, its because I see some articles that are not fit for an 5 stars, but still gets it from 1 or more users that were created the same date as the article...
With great code, comes great complexity, so keep it simple stupid...
These new accounts can vote all they like but they don't have much actual voting power as they are weighted so, 5 upvotes by a new account can be all but wiped out by a 1 vote from Marc Clifton (as an example).
I have to admit that I don't really find the votes on an article make any useful metric. I have seen some absolute stinkers of articles have high votes from people who have had accounts for a long time.
Voting needs to be democratic, and saying that a new user's vote is less valid than someone who has been signed up for a while is illogical. The rating system has in place mechanisms to weed out bad votes, so the absolute best thing to do is vote, and vote intelligently. Time and votes will remove spurious entries.
This bug has been around since a while, now its worse. Now, if you type in the generic declaration for Java code it considers it to be HTML content with the type parameter as the element name and later ones as attributes. For example,
<T extends Object>
Gets translated to,
<t extends="" object="">
Why that happens is beyond me because the language is set to Java itself. The same happens to C++, C# and other languages that support diamond notation.
So, instead of digging any deeper setting a switch might help where you turn the HTML parsers off, when the language is set to non-HTML. For a live example, this answer of mine is what I am talking about: Question about java generic method declaration[^], see revision 1 (sadly, that part don't even have the diamond section and is being rendered as plain-HTML ).
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
We've had a few articles go through recently where they are already reported as plagiarised in S&A, but enough moderators haven't spotted the theft. This makes life a little harder, as the article then needs to be re-reported in order to close it.
How about an indication in the "Article Moderation: Should this article be published?" box out that this item has plagiarism, spam, and / or abuse reports against it - not how many, or who reported them, but just an indication next to the "action" drop down so moderators get an idea to check S&A and see if they agree with the report before pressing "Approve"?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
I just found out about the flag icon at the top right of the article page. You can still report the article as unfit after it's been approved.
".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