|
Why is it messages get accounted for only through a possible MVP status (of which only 40 are awarded, so message quality isn't absolute, it is a competition of kinds), whereas articles count directly and absolutely?
Since in the end you get what you award, some people will start calculating "How many (possibly crap) articles do I need to keep my silver/golden nugget?"
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
MVP indicates a person that is actively helping the community. This help is effected via answering questions in the forums and through posting articles. I believe (but I'm not sure) that it's not merely message count but might also include some sort of "worth" calculation based on votes you receive on the messages you post (in the programming forums).
Luc Pattyn wrote: How many (possibly crap) articles
Hopefully, the "crap" is caught by the pre-screeners. Besides, that's one of the reasons I suggested such high points values for progressing from one level to the next.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: Hopefully, the "crap" is caught by the pre-screeners. Besides, that's one of the reasons I suggested such high points values for progressing from one level to the next.
Wouldn't your system make it 'easier' for these "crap" articles to make it into the general article pool?
As I understand it now the articles are screened in large bye the gold members. But with your system there will be less gold members to do this, therefor increasing the chances for these articles to go unchecked.
I know the code project staff screens them as well, but still.
I do agree with the general idea however.
In my case I'd be bumped down to bronze again, I think, but I don't really care about the status, I give help (where I can), and receive help when needed. That's a reward on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, they would probably sit in the pending approval queue longer because there would be fewer gold members to go through them, and the remaining gold members (after the level adjustment) would probably be much more selective about what gets through.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Messages are accounted for (in absolute terms) in Gold/Silver etc status too.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Since in the end you get what you award, some people will start calculating "How many (possibly crap) articles do I need to keep my silver/golden nugget?"
As they have been doing for years and will continue to do.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Messages are accounted for (in absolute terms) in Gold/Silver etc status too.
Yes, and I accept that; however it's the one point John did not justify in his proposal. So I asked.
Chris Maunder wrote: As they have been doing for years and will continue to do.
Of course. All I'm saying is be careful when considering such changes. And please don't change fundamental things often, consider them well then keep the rules constant for several years.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
I whant to remove my account.
Cant find the anyting about howto.
Please someone help me.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't remove your account. You can simply choose not to use it. If you removed your account, it would break the referential integrity.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Chris just has to give us a way to mark it as disabled (which would not be something we could un-do). This would essentially delete the email address so no further emails would be sent from CP. To be honest, they really need to add this functionality.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I agree. We generally use status fields to mark records as active or closed, but until he adds it in, the OP is stuck with the relevant solution. Really though, is it that hard not to use the account again?
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I know. My faded memory is that we had it and I kept getting tons of 'I can't get access to my account' emails, followed by 'yes, I checked the 'remove account' box. Why?' discussions.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Well, to avoid the problem, the site could send an email to the user's email address and make them click back to a verification page to make sure they KNOW their account is being removed. This verification page could provide an explanation about the consequences of deleting/disabling the account, and make them click a button to finalize it.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Account removed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Have seen the forum bookmarks before (I think) and they never worked for me. However, they seem to be working now, thanks. Any chance you can add it for all forums, including the personal ones that some people have and all the hidden ones? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Chris,
For some articles it could be usefull to have a link to a online doxygen or javadoc documentation. For one of my article, I plan to provide a zip file containing doxygen documentation instead of documenting every classes and functions in the article itself. I think it could be nice for people to also be able to browse the documentation online (and not need to first download the zip and unzip it).
Do you think it could be a usefull feature ?
|
|
|
|
|
The whole point of an article is to sell me on your idea. If I can't get enough detail from reading the article then the article has not served its purpose - adding API docs is hardly going to sell me on the idea that should have come across by reading a well written article.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: The whole point of an article is to sell me on your idea.
It really depends of the kind of article you submit. If the article is about a concept (design pattern, ideas, ...), then I agree with you. But if you submit an article as a kind of library or control (e.g. the MFC grid control from Chris), then things are a bit different: the article should contain enough information to be able to use the control properly, not only convince people that it's a good control
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: adding API docs is hardly going to sell me on the idea that should have come across by reading a well written article.
I totally agree, that's why putting the API documentation inside the article makes it heavy and is unecessary there. But you need to supply it anyway because if people want to use your control, they need to have it. And in general, it is a bit more easier to simply have a link to the API documentation instead of downloading a zip file.
|
|
|
|
|
I come from the angle that the well written article will make me want to download the code and investigate it myself. There are many things that I've downloaded in the past which have no earthly use for me, but the article has interested me enough to want to learn more.
Maybe I'm just freaky this way, but no matter how well documented the API is, if the article doesn't convince me that the control fits the bill, then I won't bother downloading it (and yes - I did download your charting control because of the article, even though I don't do C++ any more).
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
In fact we both agree: I also think an article should be well written enough to convince me to use the control (or the library). But on the other hand, once I made my mind to use a specific control and start using it, I tend to prefer browsing online documentation rather than downloading it.
Anyway, it's not really important: having to download the documentation is not really a big effort 
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: and yes - I did download your charting control because of the article, even though I don't do C++ any more
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
Cedric Moonen wrote: I tend to prefer browsing online documentation rather than downloading it.
The reason I don't do this: MSDN. I suppose that's an unfair example, but I find MSDN to be unwieldy and intrusive.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: The reason I don't do this: MSDN
 Well, yeah it is a very bad example. I've used some open source libraries and a lot of them provides some kind of API doucmentation (in general doxygen or Javadoc). When done correctly (and that's not too difficult to do), it is a very valuable tool. Of course, on its own it is not enough: you have to provide some overview tutorials so that people have a broad overview of the library. But after that people need to be able to search for detailed information about a specific part of the library. That's what I am thinking about: the article contains the tutorial and overview, and along with the article you supply the API documentation.
Did you already use doxygen (or javadoc) generated documentation ? It's something I could not live without for a lot of libraries that I'm using.
|
|
|
|
|
I've used Doxygen, and I've used Sandcastle. I don't really have a preference.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys
|
|
|
|
|
That's an interesting idea. Sometimes I include tables of APIs in my articles, but obviously the Doxygen output would be better.
Maybe a button that says Explore this API in Doxygen? Or maybe a new class of article, or new section, called The Reference Set.
This could add a new depth to CodeProject, make it more than just a drive-by grab-an-article-type site.
Worth thinking about. 
|
|
|
|
|
You can already link to an online doc (or include a downloadable version). I think Hans has spotted that there is scope here to do better.
Maybe a separate page that is purely an API page for an article? Not universally relevant, but could be handy.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You can already link to an online doc
Yes, but this page has to be online. So, my idea was to simply be able to upload some other pages that you can link from your article. In fact, doxygen and javadoc both generate mutliple html pages and one index page.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
