|
The article has been removed.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
When I go to that link, it says:
This article has not yet been approved for publication by our membership. It should be available soon.
That indicates to me that the article exist but has not been approved.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't see it? To me it is still there in pending state and with no approve button.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose I don't have enough author reputation points to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
You've got more than I
|
|
|
|
|
Strange. Maybe I just need to request to be an editor or something.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I get that as well, although it was visible yesterday. In fact, I was involved in a message exchange with the author. I think there are a few pending statuses that articles sometimes go through before reaching their final resting places.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that you cleaned up the carpet uni-voting that occurred in the lounge earlier today.
This has however exposed a 'bug'.
2 of my messages in a thread got 1 voted (and then 5 voted by someone else to counter).
The cleaning up left the message with 1 vote of 5 but my reputation has remained the same
The stats say:
15 Feb 2011 10:36 AM General Forum Message Upvoted Debator Forum Message Re: Bless... 24
15 Feb 2011 10:35 AM General Forum Message Upvoted Debator Forum Message Re: Bless... 24
15 Feb 2011 10:31 AM General Forum Message Downvoted Debator Forum Message Re: Bless... -4
15 Feb 2011 10:31 AM General Forum Message Downvoted Debator Forum Message Re: Bless... -4
So twice I got -4 for the down-vote and twice +24 for the up-vote.
But now that the down-votes are removed the -4's are still there (and my reputation hasn't gone up with 8 in that time).
Just thought I'd point it out, for me this is a very minor something in reputation points but I can imagine that for certain members it could run into the 100's of points missing.
|
|
|
|
|
Be Cool!
They will be fixed on the next recount.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well like I said for me it makes no difference, for you it could mean a few 100 points.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - I am aware of this bug which is why I hesitate to clean votes. However, yesterday was silly and I felt warranted some action.
The big will be fixed and all points corrected.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The big will be fixed
 There's another one!!
|
|
|
|
|
I too have problem with reputation points.
As Chris said waiting for it to be cleared.
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier today the lounge got carpet bombed with one votes so I figured I'd counter it a bit.
I started 5 voting the messages that where obviously uni-voted, after a couple I hit the message 'someone at your IP adress has been voting to much...'.
K no problem I'll wait a couple min and continue, after a few more the same message.
Repeat this a couple times and eventually the waiting a couple min doesn't work anymore (waited half an hour ).
So checked the reputation stats and figure out that there is a max of 50 votes a day.
K go to check my recent reputation stats, count the upvotes for today and only 19 votes, so didn't hit that limit yet.
But still I can't vote anymore.
So I think there might be something wrong with the daily limit count.
|
|
|
|
|
Think TimeZones!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I did and I checked my vote count for the last 3 days and I haven't voted 50 times in those 3 days.
I'm however able to vote again now (countered a few one votes on you in the lounge) so I think it's more a time delay.
Vote 5 times you have to wait 2 min, vote another 5 times you have to wait 10 min, vote another 5 times you have to wait half an hour... .
(numbers are made up  )
It's either that or the hamsters picked me to mess with today 
|
|
|
|
|
There are several "Vote Maximum" points.
There is a 5 minute and a 30 minute cut off point.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
As you are a Voting guru.. How can 2 votes for an Answer (1 good, 1 bad) average at 4.56/5? Does some users carry more voting weight? i.e. the OP?
Illogical thoughts make me ill
|
|
|
|
|
The voting is based on reputation.
The higher your reputation is the more weight your vote has.
That's how the average can be 4.56.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I understand the logic in having a system based on weight but a high reputation is not always best.
The post that made me think of this is this one[^], which I am not the OP however I did mark and answer as "BAD" because the code given to solve the problem did not compile (which in my opinion is NOT a "GOOD" answer). This set the score as 1/5. Then it became 4.56 with another vote... I can take a guess at the other voter with the higher rep based on other replies, but why should his higher rep result is the answer being rated so highly when the code doesn't even work. I understand the code could merely be an "idea", and I am really just using this instance as an example rather than having a go at the OP or any potential voters.
Another example, if I was the OP, if I mark an answer as bad (presuming it doesn't solve/relate to the problem in question) why should somebody with a higher rep be able to alter the score so greatly? Thus giving a false impression that the answer actually helped in anyway.
Sorry, for ranting at you - I guess you just got lucky today
Illogical thoughts make me ill
|
|
|
|
|
In any voting system you will always get spurious votes. Someone will upvote something that is crap, or downvote something that is good. However, over time voting tends to stabilise and the score arrives at the true reflection of an item's value. The biggest issue in this is encouraging members to actually vote in order to let statistics balance things out.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
When the site appears to be slow, it's actually because there's a task runnign somewhere trying to determine how many pages you've navigated to on the site. Like voting, this number is limited, but appears to change every day. I think the delays are the result of some coplex random-number generation that itself takes a few minutes to complete.
".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
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banning isn't really the solution, he/she will just create a new account with different name.
Now at least we know who it is and can just ignore him / her.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Deketelaere wrote: Now at least we know who it is and can just ignore him / her.
Who are all "we"? I certainly have learned to ignore trolls. But
1. It's really tough to have everyone ignore trolls.
2. There's no excuse to have trolls run mad in the forums. They need to be kicked out.
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
