|
I don't see that it is working fairly. Too few people have the ability to 'gang up' and get a post removed before anyone else has the chance to view it. Perhaps marking the message as 'Offensive' or similar and then it is my choice to view it as it isn't being arbitrarily censored by people who may hold a different but no less valid view to my own. It might have a confirmation box with "Are you sure you want to read this? It may not be 'kid sister safe'?" and is only avaialable to logged in users.Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
| It looks to me as if the system is working precisely as it was designed. The trouble isn't with the system. The trouble is with certain individuals who can't get it through their skulls that the majority don't want to have to put up with incessant, obsessive drivel on a subject that only small minority consider to be lounge material. L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
In your ever so humble opinion, no doubt. I'm not saying that it should be there, I'm saying if it is posted I'd like to decide for myself if I want to read it: I don't need you censoring posts on my behalf. NO one is forcing you to read or respond to posts: that is your choice. How about the rest of us get that choice as well? Or is it a case of LunaticFringe says it must be his way or no way?Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that you seem to have trouble grasping this simple fact: IT'S A MAJORITY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO SEE THIS CRAP.
DEAL WITH IT.L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
No.it's a few people who get to the one button before I have achnace to decie whether or not I want to read it through.
The only fact I have trouble grasping is why you are being such a belligerent twat or is that the only way you can argue by attempting to shove your self-serving, half-baked opinions down someone else's throat?Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
| *yawn...* L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
Good answer, child.Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't just LunaticFringe, it takes multiple votes (the vote weights are calculated as well if I'm right). So, it takes considerable amount of deliberation for a post to be removed.
How many votes or what amount of vote weight will be taken as a "considerable" quantity may be the question though.
Also, nobody is forced NOT to vote a post to be removed, nobody can be forced to. If a person feels that a post is inappropriate, he/she can freely vote for that to be removed. If many people decide that the post is appropriate, the reported abusive vote would be balanced by others and the post won't be deleted. But if it does get removed, that means many people deemed it inappropriate.
That's how the current system works.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: That's how the current system works.
Then I believe it to be wrong. The system, if memory serves, was introduced due to a high incidence of trolls and offensive material and has, to an extent, worked. However, it is now being used to censor which is an entirely different pottle of fish. Perhaps someone would be good enough to clarify the criteria. I still say that LunaticFrings (and now you) appear to be saying that it is these arbiters of good taste that decide what can be seen and unless I just happen to pop by prior to it receiving the requisite votes to remove it the post is censored, essentially, and my right to decide whether or not to read it has been removed. I feel that that is wrong and that second suggestion I made would be a fairer way of dealing with this issue.Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
Then why don't you suggest to your little butt-buddy that he post his crap in an appropriate forum to begin with? You might just find that it's a little better received.
God, what a moron.L u n a t i c F r i n g e
|
|
|
|
|
I did and he did. Besides, whether or not I like him and/or his butt are neither here nor there: it's about the right to view before a twat like you decides I shouldn't.
LunaticFringe wrote: God, what a moron.
You really are a child.Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
digital man wrote: you) appear to be saying that it is these arbiters of good taste that decide what can be seen and unless I just happen to pop by prior to it receiving the requisite votes to remove it the post is censored, essentially, and my right to decide whether or not to read it has been removed.
I wonder how you made this up. I don't know about LunaticFringe, but my point was entirely different. I was stating how the current system works against your will to read such removed posts.
I do think that there could be some sort of a provision for the people who want to read such a 'purportedly abusive' post at their own will.
You could request Chris to look into the possibilities of implementing such a feature.
PS: I'm sick of seeing 1 votes and balancing those. I not balancing anything any more.
“Follow your bliss.” – Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: You could request Chris to look into the possibilities of implementing such a feature.
Pretty sure that's what my threads were proposing.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: PS: I'm sick of seeing 1 votes and balancing those. I not balancing anything any more.
Agreed: would be nice if all voting were to be removed as it is superfluous: it doesn't not make me want to read a post.Tychotics: take us back to the moon
"Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars."
H. G. Wells
|
|
|
|
|
digital man wrote: would be nice if all voting were to be removed a
If he couldn't vote down everyone, what would Lunatic do while the rest of us were working?Jon
"I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars." ~ Stephen Hawking,
Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why does it not work like in articles? Just got anonymous vote of 1 to my first Tip/Trick and now I’m wondering if it has sense to do some effort to write something to section Tip/Trick…..
|
|
|
|
|
They're still working on the Tips/Tricks stuff. I think they even mentioned that non-anonymouse 1/2 voting will be implemented "soon"..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I suspect the low votes may be due to the fact that your Tip contains no detail about what the code does or why. People tend to like good descriptions, as can be found in your well received articles. txtspeak is the realm of 9 year old children, not developers. Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
I think he was actually just wondering why the Tips/Tricks can be anonymously 1-voted, while articles cannot be..45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Richard,
Thanks for good explanation. I see your point. This is the reason why there is written:
“It's useful for someone who already knows it and who is just looking for the exact solution.”
My personal opinion is that if I want a detailed description, I have to go to the section articles. But, yes  … I respect the voting . I just say, it could be good to know the reason of vote 1/2 like “article voting system” does.
Thanks, Petr.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Petr,
I agree with your explanation, but unfortunately, as we see every day, people just do not read things like this. I do agree that anonymous 1/2 voting should not be allowed; let's hope this is another change that happens soon.txtspeak is the realm of 9 year old children, not developers. Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
Just had a look at your tip/trick, and for the amount of information you have posted, would have thought that should have been fleshed out with some narrative, and then be used as a full blown article.
I understand a tip/trick to be a brief piece of information or code relating to a single feature/topic/point. That is presented in a concise way.
[and no i haven't voted...so it wasn't me!]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi daveauld,
Understand. I will try to improve it . Thanks for feedback.
Petr
|
|
|
|
|
This has now been changed so that you have to comment now.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
