|
It would be good if the "thread last updated date" was re-generated from the active answers and comments when an answer is deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Please correct this finally. It is really the hell and very suspecious that a programming Forum can not Support this in a intuitive way!
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been experiencing many articles downvotes after members are not required to give a reason for their downvotes. I deleted all my articles to protect their ratings. As you can see my comments are all downvoted with no clear reason.
Screenshot to show my articles are downvoted within minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
Why delete the articles? There are always idiots around who do this sort of thing, but does it really do you any harm?
|
|
|
|
|
This is the 3rd time it happened recently, I have lost 360 reputation points and some of my articles only have 3 to 4 votes and having a univote pull down the score alot.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: I have lost 360 reputation points
So what? Reputation points mean nothing at all,really. I can understand you but still....
Request you to reopen the deleted ones. Wait for admins to respond. They take necessary actions if they feel its required.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning
|
|
|
|
|
Rohan Leuva wrote: Reputation points mean nothing at all,really.
You must be joking. Sites like CodeProject and Stack Overflow have invested so much time, effort, and thought into implementing a functional/desirable reputation scoring system, and you make a statement like that trivializing their efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
What i meant is, if i get some content downvoted and get lets say -16, does it really affect what i should? I think whole concept of such sites is to help.
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying I should not report it?
If I care about reputation points, I would have reported it the 1st time it happened. The important thing is my articles got downvoted with no reason given.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: The important thing is my articles got downvoted with no reason given.
No, it isn't! If they don't give a reason, then the downvotes are meaningless. If they explain why then you can change your article if their points are valid. But "anonymous downvotes" just mean "I don't like your profile picture" or whatever and mean nothing in themselves.
Don't worry about them - you get them. I get them, everybody gets them.
They only matter if you care about the rep points - and then the person downvoting is winning because he has achieved his aim of annoying you. IGnore it, and they will go away.
The system discards anomalous up- and down- votes when working out the average article score anyway! So if you write a good article and get 20 * 5's, a couple of 1's will be thrown away as they don't match the pattern.
For example, look at this one of mine: List<T> - Is it really as efficient as you probably think?[^]
It has 112 votes, of which the system has discounted 20 - 18 * 1 and 2 * 2, and only counted the 3's, 4's, and 5's - hover your mouse over the score at the top and you'll see what I mean.
And if the system insists you comment on a vote, then you get a whole load of useless "szszszszsz", or "fdgdfdgdfdg" comments which are no use either!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
It works well when you have 20+ votes. But for articles that don't have many views, and are written by relatively unknown authors, often you don't see more than 5-6 votes. So even 2 malicious 1s can damage their score meaning people may not even read the article thinking it's crappy. Potential employers may look at it and feel that the author wrote a sub-par article. So there's a lot of damage potential there.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of my articles have less than 10 votes, so 1 downvote is high on weightage. If I am not wrong, each user can vote more than once on a article.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: If I am not wrong, each user can vote more than once on a article.
You are wrong  If you already voted an article, and issue a new vote later, your previous vote will be replaced by the new one.
You always obtain more by being rather polite and armed than polite only.
|
|
|
|
|
You should send a private email to Chris and he will help you.
|
|
|
|
|
This was some blatant targeting though.
|
|
|
|
|
Hence my suggestion above.
|
|
|
|
|
Shao Voon Wong wrote: I deleted all my articles to protect their ratings
There is an obvious flaw in this logic.
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
|
|
|
|
|
My articles are still available and searchable on CP except they are shown deleted at the top and not shown on my profile and I can still update them and I will.
|
|
|
|
|
Until google has reindexed codeproject that is.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, someone really went after you there!
|
|
|
|
|
Far better to let us fix the issue properly than simply delete your articles, but as always this is your choice.
We've identified the user downvoting the articles and have taken steps to fix the situation.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
These two questions:
C program that gives me the date after n days[^]
Date after n days without using functions[^]
are both the same question (actually from the same user under two memberships, see the comments  ).
In any case, there is noteworthy discussion in both places.
Is there a standard/suggested way to link the two together so that all of the discussion is captured and cross-referenced?
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
The Date after n days without using functions[^] was closed as a repost/duplicate.
(When I marked it as such, I forgot about the potential of it automatically getting closed...  )
The comments/discussion there were not captured and a lot of the information in solving the issue was on that question.
So, my question still stands on how to keep all of the context of the complete discussion.
Any suggestions?
Is there (should there be) a standard way to ensure the relevant discussion is preserved?
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
In the QA the "Edited" time stamp, next to the "Posted" time stamp, (at the bottom of the Question) seems to track any change at all to the entire QA item, not just changes to the actual question.
For example, adding a Solution updates the Edited time stamp.
Its placement between the Posted time stamp and the version indication implies that this is when the Question itself was last edited.
"Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed."
- G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
