|
You used phrases and words that triggered the spam filter. I approved you reply and it should be visible now.
Even Chris gets caught by it occasionally. To much marketing, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
No way! Thank you anyway.
What are those hints on marketing, by the way? 
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Did you consider letting the spam filter take the member's reputation into account?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it did 
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
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???
|
|
|
|
|
No way!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Once again my new article about "LeMP" didn't show up in the weekly newsletter... so I waited for the next newsletter and it didn't appear there either. I rely on the newsletter for page views, so I was wondering if you guys could put it in the next one? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your VS 2015 and .Net 4.6 has sneaked onto the site before it is ready!.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I'm playing with VS2015 since it's first beta (about 4 months) - so it's not that early...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ops 
(I thought it was about the timing not the function...)
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
In the reputation graphic, the legend actually show actual values but the graphic itself don't show data of the current day.
the graphic lines stops at yesterday.
To exhibit the problem, use an account with a small amount of reputation points and do something that give you some points (like posting a few answers) and display the reputation graph.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Today I visited a newly revised article (first posted late April 2015) that is highly up-voted (56 votes: 46 #5's, "six votes removed").
0. there's been some controversy about this author's articles, and the extent to which they are rapidly up-voted, before.
1. the article posted today (revised) is obviously an upgrade/re-write of a previous, different, article (which is also highly up-voted)
2. the code is very buggy in terms of how the user-interface functions at run-time
3. the author has a history of posting stuff that's fresh off his griddle. On a previous article said author wrote in response to a comment on the article's first-version: "This Program i started yesterday morning 11 Am and completed at 5 pm with in a less then a day." But, to his credit, the author has up-dated that article a few times, since then ... whether the author fixed various problems reported is unknown to me since I don't want to use his code.
Given what I've observed of the author's response to feedback in their articles, I am not motivated to give detailed feedback, but I feel like I should make some response.
But, what would be a constructive response ?
Is it fair to compare this article to what I consider the "gold standard" of CodeProject articles, like the articles/code of Mehdi Gholam, Philip Piper, Jani Giannoudis, Sascha Barber, Marc Clifton, etc., where multiple revisions have occurred over years, and functionality extended far beyond the first version of the article/code ?
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is fair!
Few months ago, Chris wrote about Article Voting: The dangers of all-good news[^]. He observed that "up-votes are bad when the up-votes are not votes based on the technical merit of an article but instead based on being the author's friend, family or colleague".
I think we all are responsible to take care about the highest quality of CP's articles.
I'm not sure what would be constructive response, but few words you had written here is good enough to share your opinion: "code is very buggy...".
|
|
|
|
|
My 2c.
- If you have opinions on the general quality, Vote!
- If you have specific feedback, post.
I believe I know of whom you're talking, and I agree with you.
But he's writing his articles in a way (a walkthrough) that's obviously appreciated by a lot of readers. (Presumably, in my opinion, newbies)
And most people don't vote on quality but rather on whether it was helpful to them.
Which could easily be compared with facebook where a cat video gets thousands of likes, while and insightful text about solving a problem gets nothing.
This in my opinion is a fault in the voting system that I've already commented here[^].
But to answer your specific question:
Yes it's fair to compare with a gold standard. What else should we compare with?
|
|
|
|
|
On WEB03.
I am not seeing my reply after posting, and not after several page refreshes, either. This was not a problem before the server move, I believe.
Edit: Closed the browser, came back in, and still don't see it. It is listed in my event history.
Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/k57yIaw.jpg[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jochen Arndt wrote: If it has triggered on your post the message has put into moderation queue and waited for approval from one of the protectors.
If it has, then that is bad algorithm. The algorithm should take into account that I am a member for so many years, and that I have a certain reputation score (not much )
|
|
|
|
|
We've had members with high rep and old accounts spam, and spam badly.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you but I still don't know what I posted that would consider my post as spam. 
|
|
|
|
|
There are questions that are staying on because it is impossible to answer, but still nothing to report (and also because OP got some comments and the commenter waits for some response)...But I do not want to see those questions anymore...
So I suggest some feature to hide them by request (and 'Hide viewed questions' of the profile settings not seems to fit)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
We had this but it caused undue load. It's certainly fixable, but at this point the effort involved seems out of proportion to the value it would bring.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If it's not intentional that the Moderator Forum is kind of hidden like it is I would suggest making it more visible (for the members with sufficient reputation). IMO it's near useless now. If it was more frequented already approved publications with issues could actually be reported by enough members to produce an improved revision.
In case you fear publications could get reported unjustified because in contrast to member-reports in Spam&Abuse there's less of a clear cut measure, the right to post in that forum could require an even higher reputation than to read it.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
When you search in-forum, it doesn't check links or link text - which is a nuisance in the Spam and Abuse forum.
A member was reported, and when I checked his account, it was closed - with me as one of the closers. I assume that means that he's already come up for plagiarism / trolling, but I can't search by the member number alone to find him: enter "10590527" in the forum search box and you get no hits at all because the member reference only appears in an href / href text.
It'd be nice if this worked, if you have the time! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
