|
I shouldn't be allowed near a computer on Sunday 
|
|
|
|
|
100% agreed with you. +5 
My Latest Article : What is DRY ?
Nothing is Impossible for Willing Heart.
|
|
|
|
|
Given that Mr. Maunder's goal for this site is the maximum amount of visitors possible, I don't think he will agree to any policy that makes people feel unwelcome, no matter how dumb their questions are.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Richard Andrew x64
I'm smirking: How many of us (including myself) would be here today with an anti-stupid-question policy ?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's an excellent way to phrase it - an anti-stupid question policy.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless they are using textspeak  . CM hates that, so lobbying for a "Text speak not allowed" report option just might get through  .
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
I want our community to be able to help as many people as possible, but encouraging laziness helps no one.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
No one should suffer any backlash as the result of the action of one single user.
I'm just a little bit scared of your idea, and here's why: Search the internet for these two terms: "LinkedIn, SWAM"
I speak from personal experience in this matter; and I don't consider myself to be a troll, spammer, or other negative influence in any online site in which I participate. (For more details, just ask.)
Now yes, you are correct, it may be time to consider expansion of negative reporting. Here is my (considered, based on experience) opinion: The negative report should factor in...
-- The number of people who view it as bad
-- The ranking of those people
-- The good-to-bad ratio of opinions about that specific post
-- The amount of time the new user has been here
-- The amount of time the complainers have been here
-- The number of times the new user has screwed up
-- The complaint-to-praise ratio of the user in question
-- The complains-to-praises ratio of the persons who are complaining
What I'm getting at is this: your immediate complaint is totally valid.
After reading your suggestion, I can quickly see this degenerating into the SWAM disaster which LinkedIn thought would fix their spam problem, but which has in turn become the plague of LinkedIn groups.
Believe me, LinkedIn's SWAM policy doesn't invite abuse by people of low integrity, it absolutely guarantees it
What you are suggesting has many parallels to the disaster that LinkedIn has brought upon thousands of victims needlessly with their SWAM procedure.
Here's what your plan (and theirs) fails to factor into the system: malicious actions by unethical persons. It is so easy for an unethical person to attack someone with a system like this that it inevitably happens. I can give you links to demonstrate this if needed.
Perhaps something like StackExchange does in their groups would be a good idea. One screw up doesn't kill you, but it does cost you, and you get to know exactly why it occurred, when, where, the people who were involved in the censure, and it costs you in your reputation. I have had this personally happen to me, and I'm still surviving there, contributing positively to others' problems, and getting a good deal for myself in return.
Whatever, whatever, please do NOT entertain the idea of letting a person be victimized by one (or a small number of) person(s) who just [doesn't] [don't] like the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding reputation, I received the following from CP staff:
As for your comment on reputation, it was never our intent for reputation to entirely represent technical competence, since it is also tied to behaviour we want to encourage on the site. Also, total reputation isn’t used to apply privileges, it’s always based on certain types of rep, so while one member may have a higher total rep than another, the second member may have a higher Author or Authority rep conveying higher privileges.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
You could be the "better man" and help the poor bastard level up his/her question to better standards;
Or if you really feel offended, just let it slide into oblivion.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I do that. See my response to the OP's question.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
"How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#?"
You actually have lots of options here.
1. Mark it as unclear or incomplete if you feel that it's too ambiguous
2. Downvote it and move on.
3. Answer it.
4. Post a comment asking the user to expand on what their problem actually is given that a simple Google search brings up a million answers. Maybe they have a specific issue.
For me there are no stupid questions. There are lazy people, or people who can't ask questions properly due to language or personality, and people who don't know enough to know how to ask the question.
Option 4 - getting the poster to update their question to explain why he's asking such an obvious question, and asking for a rundown of what's beem tried - is by far the best.
The trick is: how do we do this, and how long do we give a question before it gets categorised into the Lazy Question bucket.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think that my main concern here is not the number of visitors but rather the number of professionals who are willing to put up with this type of question. I think that Gemmell hits the nail on the head with his post Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
You may wish to fix that link.
|
|
|
|
|
It's worse than that. My response was about four paragraphs long. What you see is a very small portion of it. Code Project needs to fix a number of errors on the site or I will definitely stop using Code Project. Too bad.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I inject the word "stupid" into the conversation.
Hmmm, stupid me, huh ?
|
|
|
|
|
For a start we can stop the bitchiness from the answerers. Yes! I said it! Bitchiness!
Once someone has responded with a "you can google it" why can't everyone else just either a) move on or b) post an answer (as happened with the question quoted by the OP.
Personally I think a stock answer of "you could have googled it - here's a link to a site you would have found - if what you find there isn't clear, update your question appropriately" could be available - and that locks the question to further updating except by the OP.
I always thought the really really simple questions were a move by OG's sockpuppet account to boost his points
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if you have not been active on that forum for a while what you witness may come as a shock. I think the credibility of the forum has become diluted by a deluge of really hopeless questions AND answers. Here I make every allowance for those that have English as a second language. It is very often quite obvious a question has substance even though the English is very bad. For those that choose to act as experts there are comments and answers. Many seem to have no concept of the difference and the experienced lead the novices. There are also answers submitted for questions that are totally incomplete and waiting for elaboration from the questioner. Then there are answers delivered as homilies with no technical content which are voted up and oddly sometimes accepted. These contribute nothing to the quality of the Q&A but are just part and parcel of what it has become driven very much by the bizarre and quite ruthless chasing of points.
[Edit]
I don't want to sound completely negative. I find the Q&A very absorbing at times - there are some very good discussions initiated. The quality of many questions and answers is excellent. Answering questions is quite a challenging exercise and is what I think keeps many interested.
I wonder if a template such as for article submission with sections for question, what have I tried, which words did I google, and code for example would improve the focus of questioners.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 13-Apr-14 23:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Peter,
I agree (sadly) with your diagnosis, but I do not think the patient's condition is "terminal," and all we can do is provide hospice-care ...
I believe strongly that we (CP members), and CP staff, can change this for the better.
In the meantime, if you and I choose to "hang in there" with QA, no matter how wild the ride, well ... we can continue, as I observe you, and others, doing ... as I hope I am doing ... to give thoughtful clarifying questions to help posters make their questions clearer, and give on-topic, helpful, solutions with tested code, and focused links to resources.
And, we can reward, with our votes, and comments, behavior by others that exhibits what we evaluate as "quality," and "virtue."
To the extent our behavior models what we'd like to see QA become, I believe we are a force for positive change: oh yes, that statement is a valid indictment of my character as hopelessly romantic
sincerely, Bill
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gus,
Well, I agree with you that there is a major structural problem on QA here, but my diagnosis is a bit more hopeful. I've already posted my thoughts on QA, and suggestions for change, in depth, both on the "Suggs and Buggs" forum, and the Lounge, several times.
"could be used for nefarious purposes" I cannot understand what you mean by this in the context of your post.
There are many reasons a poster ... particularly someone new to programming, or new to CodeProject, and/or someone whose native language is not English ... may present questions that appear confused, or poorly worded. These include cultural factors, personality factors (shyness, fear of making mistakes), as well as the "darker sides" of character, like homework-shirking, laziness, etc. And, some people genuinely don't have a clue, or are overwhelmed by their plunge into programming.
I repeat what I consider the simplest, and best, suggestion I have made: when a person posts a question, do not accept the question for publication on CP unless the OP has checked off some (minimum number of) appropriate tags.
Meanwhile, I hope that all of us here can exhibit the "angelic in our nature" and welcome newcomers, and people from other cultures whose native language is not English, with warmth, and patience, asking helpful clarifying questions in comments.
If the newcomer soon proves to be a homework-shirk, a gimme-leech, an urgentz-feed-my-face-now, exhibits an arrogant sense of entitlement manifested as never responding to direct clarifying questions, etc.: well, let the down-votes begin.
The structural problem with respondents/responses to QA questions is, imho, even more serious, and I've had my say about that, already.
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
Certain questions delve deeply into issues that I can only say scare me. I am planning to publish an article on traversing web sites. However, I am concerned that it could be used nefariously (aka Prism). So I am hesitant to publish. Likewise with those questions that are advanced in response but beginner in question. So I don't answer them and hope that no one else will.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
"Not a question." would fit just right IMHO. Followed by a STFW and a punch on delete key.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a question. It was just not researched. BTW, vulgarity has no place here.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest reading How to ask questions the smart way[^].
Eric Raymond says it as well:
Stupid: Where can I find out stuff about the Foonly Flurbamatic?
This question just begs for "STFW" as a reply.
Stupid: I'm having problems with my motherboard. Can anybody help?
J. Random Hacker's response to this is likely to be “Right. Do you need burping and diapering, too?” followed by a punch of the delete key.
But I suppose you're right. Your thread, your rules.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
