|
Can we have this 'Show/Hide Viewed' link default to Show all for now? This would help in having the same look and feel to everyone that they are used to. Hidden by default for now make it look confusing.
|
|
|
|
|
| Done cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Done? DONE?!
Not adding stuff to the infamous TODO list these days? 
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. In weekends, things get done, not added to some list.
|
|
|
|
|
It was working fine 10 min ago, currently when I opened few questions, i got "Sorry, the item you requested could not be found" or "Unfortunately the page you requested was not found"
I refreshd my page to get latest Questions, i get: "Sorry, there is no question for this section"
UPDATE:
Looks like its back to normal. 
Might be someone want to know/see what happened!?modified on Sunday, March 14, 2010 3:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| It could have been site backups causing extra load cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers! That solves it all, as long as CP are aware of things... no issues!
|
|
|
|
|
Are you planning on making the Who's Who pages sortable by the rep categories?
|
|
|
|
|
(And by total reputation).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anything like total reputation anymore? It does not look like. Categorized only.modified on Sunday, March 14, 2010 4:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
It would seem only on the reputation graph, with the All Reputation Types value, don't know if it does anything though.
|
|
|
|
|
The total showed in the graph is correct..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Ye... its just that what role does that total play? As it doesn't look like we have any overall membership anymore. Looks like just a total for now!
|
|
|
|
|
It keeps us from having to total it ourselves. .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly!
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'll add it.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
What about an overall membership status?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how that would be calculated. I suppose each category would have to have a priority assigned, and then that priority somehow applied to the number of points for that category, coming up with some sort of weighted value. At that point, you could add them all together and average that, and that would be your membership level..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a formula, using my current points as an example:
My current points:
Author 19373
Authority 18912
Debator 54528
Editor 424
Enquirer 495
Organizer 515
Participant 3350
----------------------
Total 97597
If we assigned a priority to each category, as follows for example:
Author = 7
Authority = 6
Debator = 5
Participant = 4
Organizer = 3
Editor = 2
Enquirer = 1
The actual average would 13942.
The weighted average would be 19009.
If we reversed the priority sequence, the weighted average would be 8876.
For comparison, Christians numbers would look like this:
Author 14035
Authority 181685
Debator 85375
Editor 626
Enquirer 149
Organizer 606
Participant 6436
----------------------
Total 288912 (OMG!)
The actual average would 41273.
The weighted average would be 58305.
If we reversed the priority sequence, the weighted average would be 24241.
Now that we have those arbitrary weighted averages, where to we establish the overall membership levels?.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Do we actually need an overall member level?
We have a reptutation total. That in itself is never used for anything other than bragging rights. Reputation is used based on the level of the type of reputation pertaining to the current action.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Reputation is used based on the level of the type of reputation pertaining to the current action.
OK, but what if the current action is bragging?
|
|
|
|
|
| OK, you got me. cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I used it as something to strive for. A goal...
Chris Maunder wrote: We have a reputation total. That in itself is never used for anything other than bragging rights.
Don't you think there should be some sort of recognition beyond bragging rights, though? I mean seriously - Christian has almost 300,000 reputation points. That's gotta be worth something here. Maybe instead of having a combined membership status, having a Medal of Honor award for people that exceed a certain reputation points level. .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I'll ask Dmitry, our database legend if this is practical. The amount of data is a little crazy (as you could imagine). It's always possible - we just need to see how much work is involved.
But in general: yes, a good idea.cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks Chris, et al, for jumping on this. .45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
