|
It's been a while since this thread has come back.
We've had many, many, many debates on this topic (and they aren't wasted discussions) and the consensus is that it will simply lead to voting wars. In fact we still occasionally have voting wards even when those involved aren't actually sure who's downvoting them. It's crazy, and it's the reason there's no downvoting in general discussion forums.
The options that have been discussed are
- Everything's open. General carnage ensues.
- Everything's open for those who opt-in for public voting. You can see who voted for you, they can see what you voted for. Unfortunately this allows someone to opt-in, see who voted, then opt-out and go crazy with the votes. There are variances to this, none of them worth the time.
- Upvotes are public, downvotes aren't. It's a possibility...
- We introduce a different system.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to know that this has been a topic for discussion before. And I absolutely share your views. Personally, I was thinking along the lines of the 3rd option, but the I'm used to how things are right now, and things should only change if the majority wants it.
Update: What do you think about anonymous comments? When someone downvotes, they don't want the OP to know for obvious reasons. An anonymous comment could help OP know what the downvoter did not like without the possibility of a backlash.
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
modified 11-Oct-17 15:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Different system -
Was useful.
That's it. That's all. No down-voting, simply a thumbs up for something that was useful to somebody. Article rating is based on thumbs up value and the rep of the person giving a thumbs up. You could treat forum messages and Q/A answers the same way.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe make it so hi-rep users (in the technical categories, such as author and scholar) can vote an article as useful.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe show a bar (or pie) chart for each article, showing the number of people for a given rep value that voted. So if you get someone votes your article as useful results in you getting 80 points (assuming "useful" means 5.0), and two vote that get you 48 points, the graph would be (and I don't know all the possible points values). Bar values (or pie slices) would represent a percentage of people that voted with a certain point value.
=
= =
-------------------------
1 8 16 24 32 48 80
This chart idea could also be carried over to the list of articles presented on the CP home page, and in the user's list of articles (and tips).
(I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the PRE tag handling is completely hosed up.)
".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
|
|
|
|
|
You had "Use markdown" checked, so the markdown processor was getting confused about what's markup and what's not. I've unchecked that box for your post.
I just can't see how the pie chart would provide meaningful information. Statistically you'll mostly get low rep voters.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Statistically you'll mostly get low rep voters.
Just an idea. You could also factor in bookmarks, views, downloads, etc.
I have no ideas regarding how these would factor in, but you have the metrics, so maybe you could run a few hundred test cases against whatever algorithm(s) you might devise. It would/should be a simple matter to convert existing article votes to the new system as well.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
As instructed, I dragged a file onto my article to provide a "Download source" link, and the link looks correct in that it ends with my code file, but it gives a 404 when clicking it. How do I give my readers my source?
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
When they browse the code, they can click on the ZIP file in the source tree.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
When they browse what code? They can't download it, and I see nothing looking like a source tree anywhere close to my article.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Which article?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Ooops. It is "A Folder Browser using the Bootstrap Treeview – Part 1", thanks.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
hi, i cannot download the following code. File not found.
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1208668/From-MVC-to-Razor-Pages
|
|
|
|
|
I've emailed the author to get another copy up there.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
It is not only the download. The comment section on the bottom is also missing (there is just the header).
|
|
|
|
|
The forum has been fixed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That was fast 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, thanks for that, Avast.
(the page is fine)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It's probably picking up the sample script from the question, where the user was trying to write malware.
Even though that script isn't executable. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
probably.
I had classified as malware attempt just by looking at the tittle.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I would have expected something along the lines of code submission with article submission but caught unawares, I now have an article with no source code.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Pack your code into a zip file (or two)...
Upload it just like you upload images...
Use the ' Add selected zip files to article' button, together with the checkbox next to your file to insert into your article a link to the code (probably at the top)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
