|
Member 11683251 wrote: Here I've gotten help and comments which have helped rephrase my problem so it can be better understood and help myself to better understand what it's I'm asking about.
I think you've hit the head on the nail here. Mostly, people have a problem they don't know what to do about, hence they don't know what they should ask about.
Hence, the smartasses will say that they are stupid - instead of helping them understand the problem. It's a vicious circle, because if you don't get help in understanding where the problems lie, you won't know how to ask a better question either.
Homeworkers, however, ought to know more about what they're asking about, because hopefully, they will have had SOME education on the subject in class. So homework questions are ALWAYS stupid. If you had listened to your teacher instead of Facebooking, you'd know what the answer was... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 13-May-16 9:13am.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I don't post questions. Each and every time instead of an answer there are people criticizing what you did or telling that what you're trying to achieve is wrong - even when given the circumstances is actually reasonable, at least more than rewriting the entire code base of the company.
I don't answer often because many questions are simply requests for solutions - I have no time to spare on that, if I want to code I'd be doing it instead of procastrinating on CP - or are outside my sphere of competence. Also by the time one finish writing the answer often the question ends up deleted.
And yes, I too noticed the terrible sociopatic attitude of some members.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: Each and every time instead of an answer there are people criticizing what you did or telling that what you're trying to achieve is wrong - even when given the circumstances is actually reasonable, at least more than rewriting the entire code base of the company.
That really irritates me. If they can't help you with the problem as the situation is, they should just let somebody else answer. As you say, you may very well HAVE to do stuff a certain way because of how the system is build before you got at it. Refactoring is not always a good idea because is can waste company and/or client money and/or time.
I have asked specific questions on occasion, and people will come up with a lot of complicated ways of solving them that are not realistic. But when I point out that that is not what I ask for, I'll almost certainly be abused... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 13-May-16 10:11am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I can definitely relate to that one.
For many of us, the stuff we struggle with most is garbage that we've inherited from our predecessors. We know full well that the "big picture" answer is something along the lines of "use pattern X", "use pattern Y" or "normalise your goddamn database" but we're not about to get the go-ahead to rewrite something that's due to die in a couple of years and we really, really don't need to be reminded about how unspeakably awful the code is.
I hate having to precede questions with an explanation that borders on an apology - "I'm working on some legacy code that was written by someone who couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag and I'd really love to be able to fix one little thing without rewriting 2 million lines of very bad code etc., etc." Even having done that, there will still be some numpty who skips straight to the code sample and blurts out "Why aren't you using MVVM, idiot?"
Whilst CP is nowhere near as bad as SO for that sort of self-righteous prickery, I do think that it's becoming more prevalent as time goes by.
|
|
|
|
|
This might be a tricky path to follow but maybe...
To have some moderators who (just like in some chat forums) are able to ban abusers for some time. I do not hang around in the Q&A but I would think and hope that the bad apples are not in majority.
"Be banned for a week or two to ponder your sins."
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure that "somebody" would get pissed off and think that Griff was only banning him because he felt his rep points were threatened... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
So what? "Somebody" may think whatever he wants. 
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think anything here could "threaten" Griff in any way: he is, after all, "original" 
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but right now he's got the highest rep point! Who knows how he might react if he were poked down to second place? He might throw a fit and start using all the fowlest Welsh expressions he knows? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 13-May-16 9:23am.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Is it absurd, or totally unrealistic
No, and I speak as one who has been guilty of such misdemeanours as you describe. However, there are times when the carelessness, lack of realistic expectations and sheer stupidity of some questions pricks that part of my brain that tends to blow a fuse.
The foregoing is a reason, not an excuse (for which there is none).
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: I speak as one who has been guilty of such misdemeanours as you describe
That could be why Bill didn't include you in the respected members list... Jussaying!
[EDIT] You may have noticed that I weren't there either... [/EDIT]
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
modified 13-May-16 9:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
Come on, Johnny J., take some Windex to that crystal ball.
I did not mention such valued and respected frequent contributors to QA like Richard MacCutchan, Richard Deeming, Sasha LeFavre, Maciej Los, Afzaal Zeeshan, CHill60, Dave K., OriginalGriff, and many others ...
Because they do participate in QA. I spoke only of persons who have stopped participating in QA because of (imho) their negative experience there, and commented publicly on that.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
I was joking. Made sure to put the icon up there...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
I'm honoured to have been included in that list, but will also confess to having been guilty of a ... shall we say, less than tolerant attitude in QA from time to time.
I did actually stay away from QA ... and in fact this entire site, for sometime because of the behaviours you mention. However I grew a thicker skin, realised my own worth and came back. I've only really been fully active for the last 3 or 4 years.
I will say here and now though - if anyone catches me out being rude or insulting, please call me out on it - nicely though  .
I can only improve through knowledge and awareness.
However a certain member is completely lacking in self-awareness
|
|
|
|
|
The problem won't be resolved until all the old programmers are retired or dead.
Us old guys are part of the pre-internet era, where you had to muscle through coding problems alone because your network of truly knowledgeable peers was quite small. Along came the internet, and we were glad that we didn't have to read endless unrelated texts to get to the solution of our problem. Google made it even simpler for us.
Overall, we developed a certain work ethic regarding coding. By habit, we look for the solution BEFORE asking for help. It's a completely different mind set nowadays, and I'm willing to bet that instructors are even suggesting getting help off the internet.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
I do agree that there may be a "generational experience" aspect to this that helps explain the negative behavior of some members.
The key thing, I suggest, is not to let those few who are socially destructive, set the "tone" for the process, and/or, drive other people away.
And, I distinguish between being "blunt" and "forceful" in comments and interactions with newcomers, from being insulting.
I have seen you give very solid technical answers in a very "blunt" way without insulting anyone, and I enjoy that aspect of your on-line persona.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I enjoy that aspect of your on-line persona.
That's not just my online persona (and that's why I walk around armed to the teeth).
".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
|
|
|
|
|
This exact same person shat all over me in my newbie experiences. I posted this [^] question asking where to start with web development. At the time I was a seasoned Win32 and .Net developer. That was all. I have since added Android, a lot of SQL, and yes, lots of web to my resume. But at the time I didn't know where to start and how to make heads or tails of anything.
I realize in hind site how stupid my question was. Really what I wanted was for someone to explain what items like CSS, JavaScript, HTML, ASP, PHP, jQuery, etc all meant. I didn't know what I should learn because I didn't know how they tied together or where to even begin.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the reporting system lacks the nuance to address this problem, so here's what I propose.
Please send me an email (sean@codeproject.com) when you see people behaving improperly in QA -- especially if it is in the comment section (something tells me a lot of the problems occur there). I'll narrow the examples into a "Code of Conduct" we'll look at, approve, and hammer up somewhere. Someone breaks the code? Report their account and link to the question / answer where it happened.
Break the code, you get an email and a timeout (temporary de-activation). Break the code repeatedly, your account may be forfeit.
Seem fair enough?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
CodeProject
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt that will work. People with technical prowess are frequently terrible when dealing with people (at least in my limited experience).
If you disable their accounts, most of the Authority accounts will get wiped out.
(there are exceptions obviously, I've noticed a couple in my time here, I'm sure everyone knows who I mean)
|
|
|
|
|
It's kinda like the elephant in the room, huh No one wants to mention him by name. But really it's just one guy, one single person behind all this unrest! I know you guys don't want to lose a high-value contributor, but you also gotta consider if he's causing more damage than he's doing good here. Also, maybe he's just a nice guy but with a not so socially compatible outer temperament. Perhaps, a few nice words from you (in private) would help here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: Also, maybe he's just a nice guy but with a not so socially compatible outer temperament.
If its the elephant Im thinking of, then, I'd offer a suggestion from working with various species of elephants - there's a cultural issue here - Ive observed that the particular herd of elephants interpret things 'quite literally' while they try and understand what it is in front of them - so they fire off a first response... once they have digested (if they can) the issue, obviously if it's too inane it remains undigestible and it cant be helped, they often propose a good answer. I think there is a nice guy/elephant there, maybe sometimes he'd like to be the elephant herd leader (we'll leave out that elephants are a matriarchal society for the purpose of this)
|
|
|
|
|
I would appreciate any effort to address this recurring negative pattern of on-line behavior in QA.
I've said this before (in posts to Suggs&Buggs): I think requiring the question poster to check off such basic key points of information about their post as (off the top-of-my-head examples):
Language: C#, C++, JavaScript, Ruby, Python, Swift, Rust, Go
OS : Windows, Mac, Linux, Android
.NET FrameWork: 2, 3, 4, 4.5
.NET Stack: WinForms, WPF, ASP, MVC
IDE : VS 2012, VS2013, VS 2015, Eclipse
before they can post the question ... would contribute to "grounding the questions" and eliminating the frequent tea-leaf reading going on to figure out what the OP is talking about. I believe that might also serve to constrain some of the off-topic sniping by responders.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
For an oiled up mankini freak, you have some cracking ideas!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
