|
|
|
Thank you kindly for the report. We're on it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Some Whois data.[^]
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
The message[^] Sascha refers to has been removed as inappropriate, I feel that sends the wrong signals to the users.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is somehow related to the already mentioned mirror, but I wanted to inform you that I located another one:
http://dj9okeyxktdvd.cloudfront.net/
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you kindly! We're on it.
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
Not a big issue, I just thought you'd like to know. The vertical line in the message tree sometimes appears in the middle of the page like this one:
http://imgur.com/ko7eTrG[^]
I'm not sure when it occurs, I tried opening several, but this is the only message where it is happening right now. Maybe it is caused by the highly intellectual content of the post 
Safari on iOS 8.3 (iPod). Looks more like a crack in the screen until you look closely and notice it scrolls...
|
|
|
|
|
I found that if you go from a post to one below it the issue appears, but not the other way around. Same happens between threads as well.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
(The general topic has been brough up several times recently but I haven't seen this suggestion yet)
Suggestion:
To improve the appearance of the technical discussion forums, introduce a push-off forum ("trashbin" / <insert nicer name here>) into which protectors may move those questions which in one or the other way violate the posting guidelines but don't have to be completely deleted. The poster might receive an email notifying him about that.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
This is what voting was meant to accomplish: People downvote the bad questions and we de-emphasise them.
If a protector moves a question to a trashbin, who would then answer them? Who would actually want to go dumpster diving to find what's there?
To me this is "deleting the bad ones without saying you're deleting them", which may be more palatable to some, but the effect is the same.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Who would actually want to go dumpster diving to find what's there?
I would. Oh sorry, wrong forum... 
|
|
|
|
|
You won't find any lasers there 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the discussion under this answer[^], do we need to have an explicit declaration of when it is and is not acceptable to post links to commercial products?
In case it gets deleted:
- (Question about Excel Interop)
- (Answer which links to a well-known and oft-spammed commercial product)
- Me: Posting links to commercial components is considered spam.
- Him: Where does it say that?
- Me: Why would it need to say it anywhere? You're posting a link to a product which has to be purchased, giving the makers of that product free advertising. That's spam by anyone's definition.
- Him: Spam is unwanted communication. This individual asked for a suggestion so in response I said what I have used with success and provide him a link to look at it under his own accord. If you go by that extreme, we can't talk about any of Microsoft's products or post any links to them because they are commercial.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: do we need to have an explicit declaration of when it is and is not acceptable to post links to commercial products?
If so, maybe distuingishing between posting a link to a commercial product and just mentioning its name?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
When I used links to commercial products in answers/solutions I marked them as exactly that. It was not often I used this, but with the currently enforced policy I'd think twice about doing that.
Not that I'm doing much answering these days, there's just to much nitpicking and "I'm holier than thou" going on for my gusto.
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
It depends...
A solution (an answer) is not a spamm, if it meets all the following criteria:
1) a solution is not a link-only-answer,
2) a solution explains at least in few words the issue,
3) link to commercial product is related to OP question (someone is looking for inspiration, design pattern, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I just wrote and publish a tips/trick. It has been voted 2 and 4.
It is not an extraordinary tips. But it does what it should and does it well, at least, to my point of view. I took the time to write a sample and share it to help people.
Everybody has the right to vote to their feelings, that's fine. But I wonder if it would not be a good idea to force people to write at least one line comment (minimum of some characters) that would explain their choice when they vote 1,2 or 3 stars? That way it would be easier for the writer to improve either its article, its code or at least understand the decision of the person. Stars are the only rewards to writers. A bad evaluation is hard to receive but it could, at least, be really useful if it come with comments.
Could it be a good idea to force people that vote 1-3 stars to write a little comment?
Would it be just a minimum of respect for the author?
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Ouellet wrote: force people to write at least one line comment (minimum of some characters) that would explain their choice when they vote 1,2 or 3 stars?
It was exactly like that not too long ago. But it didn't solve the issue: Many people who downvoted just left a nonsensical comment.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Sasha for the information.
But there is 3 important benefits to forcing people to do so for vote for 1-3 stars:
- First the person has to identify itself. It should help reduce bad vote without an appropriate reason. Perhaps just a bit, I don't know, but it would help reduce inappropriate down vote.
- Second. It would give author an idea of the reason, although it is a silly one, it give him helpful feedback.
- Third. A reply from the author to a bad evaluation comment would give him the opportunity to answer the down voter which would also give valuable information to him and other readers too.
I think it was a mistake to remove that feature. 
|
|
|
|
|
All articles got the vote 4 or 5 with that system, as people didn't care to write any reasons for their vote. So a lot of useless articles got the vote 4 instead of 1, 2 or 3, meaning that the voting system didn't represent the real value of the article.
As it happens, there are plenty of ridiculous articles that have been up-voted by less experienced programmers, like code vulnerable to SQL injection attacks, bad design choice etc, but it still had the voting average of 4.8 or around there.
As you might understand you have chosen to open up Pandora's box here
|
|
|
|
|
What I understand from your comment, is that forcing comment to any kind of vote would help improve the quality of the value of votes. It would inevitably also reduce the number of vote but if it is for more significant evaluations, I think it would just give more value to my proposition to put back a system where comments are necessary to vote (at least negative but also for positive).
Thanks,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
