|
I also doubt the same after seeing 'What i have tried' section there.
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
|
|
|
|
|
And somebody has deleted it...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like OP himself removed it. I advised him to post it in QA.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I can't really tell what happened there.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I tried to get the evidence preserved...
Oh well, maybe next time 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 4-Mar-16 19:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Can we dump it please.
Too few of the posters use it the way it's intended, example: Error in my stored procedure[^]
Just two code dumps. This is getting extra irritating in those few cases where the codedumps actually differ, I have to read through both just in case.
Could we instead have a "popup" when they press the "post" button, with a couple of checkboxes asking:
- Have you described under what circumstances the problem occurs?
- If there was an error message, have you included it?
- Have you included the affected code
- Have you stated what you tried?
This won't make any difference for the cases where the user is simply to stupid, but when they just didn't think all the way it might.
|
|
|
|
|
The question isn't a question. It's a code dump and it should be closed as "Not a question".
If you can think of a general case where asking someone to describe what they have tried will actually be detrimental I'm happy to listen. For now please consider the case where someone doesn't wish to spend a few very short moments writing an answerable question as a sign that the question should be removed.
I'm not after a perfect question, perfect grammar, perfect anything. I'm asking for some basic effort in asking a question.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
But there are actually many questions where code is posted in the "What have you tried" section or even both sections. It seems that many users don't realise the intention of this section and think it to be something like "I have tried to solve this programming problem by writing this piece of code".
How about a hint that code has to be placed in the "Describe the problem" section?
Like:
Describe the problem (add code here if necessary), or
Describe the problem (show related code here), or
Describe the problem and show related code
What have you tried (no code please), or
What have you tried to solve your problem, or
hope that the description of the first section indicates that no code should be posted here.
|
|
|
|
|
What JA & JA both mean, essentially, is that there are illiterates trying to answer illiterates questions ...
If the illiterates would ignore this waste of time to begin with they'd actually improve the answerability of going to QA legitimately recognizing a post and poster who's NOT wasting anybody's time but just needs a quick answer.
So stop short of removing QA in it's entirety and just get rid of the new partition text making a full reversion to the previous state.
This is a tell. Not a rant. 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe consider having that popup which Jörgen suggested additionally?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
That's then managing for the worst case, instead of making it easier for those who know what they are doing.
The goal here isn't to make it so hard that only those really, really desperate will post. The goal is to provide simple tools to help someone ask the question correctly, while also allowing moderators to quickly identify and remove questions that have had zero effort put in.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: "The goal here isn't to make it so hard that only those really, really desperate will post. The goal is to provide simple tools to help someone ask the question correctly, while also allowing moderators to quickly identify and remove questions that have had zero effort put in."
Who could disagree with such reasonable, laudable, goals ?
The real question here seems, to me, to be about (what in Buddhist philosophy is called) the "rightful means" to achieve these goals.
My humble opinion (to repeat an opinion I have expressed here several times over the last years) is that it is reasonable to require the poster to take some minimum actions before they enjoy the privilege of posting:
a. to click one of a few checkboxes, or select from a dropdown, to indicate WinForms, Php, WPF, ASP.NET, Web Forms, etc.
b. to fill in the "what have you tried field" ... as it is now
I would go even further, I would require the poster to have searched CodeProject for articles/tip-tricks, etc. first. Hopefully, presenting to the poster, for their selection the types of links that appear now to the right of the question after it is posted. But, I realize that's probably not acceptable, based on my evaluation of CP's "gestalt."
But, perhaps my sense that the poster who has not visited those highly relevant links shown after the question is posted is either lazy, or a fool, or just not paying attention ... is extreme. Come to think of it, I'd make the would-be poster visit every one of those links before posting ... hey, "sic semper tyrannis" 
However, I also recognize that if there is some tangible (business) benefit to CP to having some sheer "volume" of questions posted ... which I consider possible but, have no way to evaluate ... then, fine, leave it like it is. Or, even, disable moderation entirely.
In my mind, there are more important issues involving the quality of CP QA that need to be addressed, involving responder behavior, and rep-bloating. But, I am tired of talking about them.
Anyhow, I think the "what have you tried" field is a good idea ! But, I consider the passing fantasy I had that my jeremiads here had something to do with its appearance ... well, that must be just another wart of narcissism on my psyche's carapace of grandiosity.
cheers, the ex-CP-MVP formerly known as 'Bill'
p.s. just because I like to joust, does not mean I feel jilted: I am at an age when wind-mills do summon me to combat, although, alas, sans mule and squire, and the imagination of a Cervantes.
«In art as in science there is no delight without the detail ... Let me repeat that unless these are thoroughly understood and remembered, all “general ideas” (so easily acquired, so profitably resold) must necessarily remain but worn passports allowing their bearers short cuts from one area of ignorance to another.» Vladimir Nabokov, commentary on translation of “Eugene Onegin.”
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a perfect example of what "literacy" entails. Or I should say one example of it:
Merging two tables based on id[^]
Based upon a judgment of the intelligence of the poster, a duplication of textual input in his output. The poster's sense of the blackbox that exists in communications.
In lieu of the usual verborum bombastus.
(due to the fact that when arguments to the original Bug/Sugg, unless the hamsters are truly genuine in they're concern over the topical content value after they post answers/thoughts here, are not seen by them. Only by the concerned cpian adding his sense to the discussion ...)
Has anybody given thought to a forum paradigm like Zimbardo's Prison Study? For example, instead of striking the bad poster ("kicking" I think is the shared term often used) from the lists, placing him in a more familial role as an outcast or a prisoner. CPians who engauge actively in site patrolling , I believe, already have a good sense of "who they are"?
But like I said above, this partition ("What I have tried") is an invitation to phish/troll and doesn't actively thwart a dumb poster from deciding to think twice. Oh, and on thinking twice, isn't that the fractious isps/esps constellation where the eyes better serve the fingers of the hands?
|
|
|
|
|
To be honest I find the message you linked actually is a good example for the "what have I tried"
The guy is honest and says... "I know I am wrong" but he still shows he has tried something and put it in the correct place.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of examples:
THIS PAGE: 12,111,434 members (55,304 online)
HOME: 10,500,000 members (55,304 online)
????
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I see the the same numbers on all pages.
My guess is a cache error.
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???
|
|
|
|
|
That happens when the database gets lazy and the system gives up and makes up a number instead.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
