Dave, I have also noticed that I don't venture into the forums as much because of the new collapsed navigation menu. Your suggestion might solve that, but I would rather be able to see the whole menu.
I actually just came across this CP page[^]. Forget about the page content and look at the navigation bar. It really is very long and I can see why they decided not to display all of it, but I think I would like to have the option - perhaps in the bar where you set up the other forum options (Profile popups, Spacing, etc.).
Recently ,for my question somebody posted solution.I thought solution is good but not i asked for , hence I gave 3 out of 5 (single vote). Now he is complaining its down vote. Is it correct?Its down vote.
A 3 is neutral in the fact that it doesn't give negative or positive reputation points, but if a post has already got one vote of 5 and you give it a 3 then you are bringing the average down to 4, so effectively downgrading the 5. Similarly, if a post has a vote of 1 and you give it a 3 you are upping the average.
I think this is perfectly fine. In this case it is an answer in QA and if the OP felt it did not resolve the problem, the average should go down. In any case it should not hurt the member posting the answer. I would not object if I answered a question and received a 3-vote.
Had it been an article, you could argue that it hurts the author to have the average rating lowered even if there is no change in points. I do wish Code Project would change the 3-vote on articles so you don't have to leave a comment. There are people who take offense to getting 3-vote as this thread shows.
Apparently this post[^] has been flagged as spam (at least) 36 times, but it's still there. Aren't they supposed to be removed after a certain number of reports? (The account was closed though, so it looks like it's working there.)
OK, gather round kids and I'll tell you a story...
Our reputation system grew quickly from a simple system that awarded points for posting articles to a system that was very fine grained. The initial code to award points was baked into the stored procedures that created articles, but as it grew we found we were mixing two patters: one which baked calls to the rep system into the sprocs, and one which used our modular code system that listened to "events" that occurred and would react appropriately.
When we moved our reputation system from a site-centric to network-centric system we, by necessity, had to pull out all the code in the sprocs and move them into message handlers (ie do it properly). We have 77 rep events and dozens of event handlers and we got a few of them cross-wired. However, since I had turned off ratings in the forums, this had masked the issue, because the rating and reporting systems were connected (again, another TODO: untangle them).
It was a straight out bug on our part, and it's the same bug I'm fixing, Friday night, bottle of red, to ensure points are awarded when you edit a Quick Answer question or answer.
But now, I have one more question. Regarding the 800+ points lost from people abusing the reporting feature, is there any way to overturn those?
They'll be back the next time a full recalculation is done. This may be done concurrent with the change, or might wait until more changes are queued up: The recalc takes a while to complete and often results in "where did my points go?!?!?!11eleventyone1" posts from people who see their total when the calc is only partially complete and panic.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
The only way to do that is to undo all the reporting events. And no, I'm not going to do that. If certain high-level members want to abuse this site, and the members who use it, then the only option I have is to just open up the reporting system so it's clear who's being counter productive.
But no - I'm not going to play Big Brother and decide what abuse report is right and wrong. Sorry, that's just impractical and unpalatable.
Wow. just wow! Does this mean if you just whine enough, it'll be set straight. Is this how this place works? Feel free to cancel my account in this case. I don't think I want to belong to that kind of community.
"All animals are created equal"
"Some animals are more equal than others."
Bye. bye, And take good care lest this place degenerates completely!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Manfred, honestly, the staff at CP can do what they want to do. If they don't reset them, fine. My life continues.
I find the problems experienced today saddening because it doesn't build community, but rather detract from it - when people do things out of spite rather than a 'community spirit'.
You can do whatever you feel is necessary, but I think you need to step back from the keyboard and relax.
If you don't care about anything other than your 'Authority' points, that is your prerogative. Then just resign to enjoy the parts of the site that you care about - Q/A. But for most people, that isn't the case.
I don't quite get what is you problem:
1. Andrew made a good suggestion to improve the site, which Chris will implement.
2. Andrew asked that points which were abusively taken from him be set back, which seems to me a perfect valid request.
If you'd care about reputation, and I would halve yours just for fun, wouldn't you be glad that the CP Team reinstates it to its original level ?
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
The suggestion is to only deduct the points once the post is actually removed for being spam.
I personally feel that's a good suggestion, the uni-voter (or uni report voter) will lose his 'power' and the posts that really are spam will get enough votes to have the points deducted.
I'm pretty sure Chris wouldn't just put points back unless it is actually the right thing to do. No matter how much anyone whines.
I still don't get the whole obsession with the points but hey that's just me I guess.
when an item is reported anywhere other than the forums there are no points lost until enough votes have accumulated to mark the item as spam (or abuse). Once marked, points are deducted, but single votes will not cause points to be deducted until the threshold has been met.
Everywhere except in the forums. We've planned, and stated we were planning to make the forums consistent (and fairer) many times.
So if you feel that's unfair and arbitrary, and that members should be able to continue abusing the forum system and marking messages as abuse or spam for no apparent reason (and I'm certainly not going to point fingers in who is or isn't doing this) then maybe this community isn't for you.
If on the other hand you're complaining because I've removed the ability to knock hundreds of points off members for the spam votes then my answer is that I wouldn't have done this if the system wasn't being abused, and as soon as I've had a chance to make the reporting system consistent those penalty points will come right back.
Would it be possible to only apply the negative points AFTER the post has been deemed as spam/abusive?
At this point the user is removed. What exactly is the point of deducting points from an account that no longer exists? Also if they are a spammer then they couldn't give a sh*t if they lose reputation points.
For actual spammers you are right off course, but for those spam reports made to give a reputation hit to the poster this would be a good solution. This way spam reports for malicious reasons does not work anymore.
Just remove the ridiculously punitive participant points: surely not needed. I had no idea it was quite so harsh - my apologies to anyone that has suffered such an undeserved loss cos I reported your post.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum