|
I would suggest two separate voting systems: one anonymous, fast, without any comments, and a more complete option, like a review, with the score plus suggestions/criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps there's a new category.
What's called up/down votes today becomes something more like opinions, which are public and must be backed up with some explanatory text. (Maybe only for downs, what didn't you like?).
Then, a simple like/dislike category for those who have only a nebulous feeling, or don't want to get into the muck of the why they feel some way.
That might give an overall measure of popularity, plus some details for those who are inclined to provide them.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a different option?
Leave voting anonymous but require a reason to be given when down voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be fine to have an option of a small check box to let the voter select if s/he wants to show the name or not
|
|
|
|
|
Sad to see how firmly the fascist mind-set is entrenched in the minds of our "smart young men".
Have you ever wondered why "real" votes are anonymous?
Have you pondered the fate of Brendan Eich?
Note: "Debate" is where people argue an idea back and forth - "posting" and "commenting" in this context.
"Voting" is what people do when they want to signal their approval, or not, of something.
"Voting" is generally considered to be a "Yes/No" action.
Only a fascist believes that it is reasonable, or even possible, to browbeat someone into changing their vote.
|
|
|
|
|
A RAID disk walks into a bar.
Bartender asks what's wrong.
"Parity error."
"Yeah, you look a bit off."
|
|
|
|
|
There are 10 kinds of people who understand that joke.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: There are 10 kinds of people who understand that joke.
I don't get it. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, sorry. There are only 2 types of people.
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to be the 11th one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually 11rd.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
There are 16 kinds of people who understand that joke?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't care who you are that there is funny!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
Q: What goes "Pieces of seven, pieces of seven"?
A: Parity error
(Definite Leslie...)
|
|
|
|
|
So many people rave about RichCopy, and I used to, but haven't used it for years. Now I'm moving serious GBs to my new external drive, and started using it again. It has a multi-thread option, where you can set the numbers of threads for directory search, directory copy, and file copy. I set the file copy threads to five, and it couldn't copy anything, because as soon as the first thread started copying a file, it locks it, and then another thread tries the same file, and the copy fails because the file is in use.
What does it take to record which file a thread starts copying, and block other threads from that file? This is high school level programming.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
I just stick to ROBOCOPY through Windows PowerShell...you can set the number of threads with a switch option among other settings like resume, etc...it's worth getting to know.
|
|
|
|
|
RichCopy is RoboCopy, just re-released. I have found a happier way, where I set the directory copy threads to 5 and file copy to 1, then I don't get locks, and I get a reliable copy. The file lock thing is still stupid as hell. 
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
I thought RICHCOPY was a GUI for ROBOCOPY?...ROBOCOPY[^] is a command line utility.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I stand corrected.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
When you say 'started using it again' does that perhaps suggest that you are using an old version and would that be on a new OS by any chance? I mean obviously like everything it's MS's fault and they should be kicked from pillar to post and ranted at until the very crack of doom but maybe there's just a chink in there for ... what shall we call it? ... contributory negligence? 
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find a newer version than 4.0.211, from 2009. Using it on Windows 10. You may be right, and maybe by now plain Windows copy between multiple instances of Windows Explorer is as safe and better.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: because as soon as the first thread started copying a file, it locks it, and then another thread tries the same file, and the copy fails because the file is in use.
That's an efficient use of threads, trying to copy the same file multiple times!
Marc
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
