|
I'd like to suggest a new option for articles that need help: Contains dangerously wrong advice
For example, this article[^] contains code which claims to protect against SQL Injection, but in fact does nothing of the sort. I've tried to explain the problem to the author[^], but without success. 
None of the other options for flagging the article apply, but I think it's wrong to leave an article containing such dangerously wrong advice published on the site, where other developers who don't understand the error will blindly copy the code and believe that they're protected.
Or, in other words, "Someone is wrong on the Internet!"[^] 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: None of the other options for flagging the article apply
I would go for the existant "extremly poor quality" or the "innacurate / misleading"
actually misleading would fit, don't you think?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Misleading / inaccurate is the one you want.
I'm adding this to Quick Answers, too.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Was somewhat surprised to see one of those questionable "Important Notice! Updated drivers are critical for your PC to function correctly! Check for drivers now!" ads in the header. Does a programming/computer using specialist website like CP want to be associated with such tactics? Most of us are knowledgeable enough to resist, but a newbie may get infected because they think CP really condones the product. 
|
|
|
|
|
Did the ad have a little "x" in the top left? If so, click it and report it - we remove the crap ads ASAP. If it didn't then please take a screenshot and copy the URL and email it to me (chris@ codeproject).
Those ads aren't acceptable. I've asked our AdOps team to dig in and ensure they are blocked.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Did the ad have a little "x" in the top left?
I don't think it did, but it has rotated out so I can't be certain. If I see it again I'll do the screenshot and see if it will reveal any URLs without clicking.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks David.
We use a third party provider to backfill ads during slow times and we do our best to really trim them down to relevant ads, but unfortunately some slip through, hence our own "report this ad" system. Sometimes 3rd party ads simply don't appear in a form our system can spot. We had a meeting on this issue today and Yuriy's going to dig in and beef it up a little more.
Death to crappy ads.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Death to crappy ads.
Triple Yay! Now if we could get the rest of the web to follow suit...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Just sent an email with a possible malware infecter ad in the banner.
|
|
|
|
|
We got your email and removed the ad - thanks for that.
It was a WinZip ad. We were a little baffled (and saddened) at that. We thought they were better than that.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Baffling. Unless there is a small chance Google has a redirect misdirect between banner and add (which doesn't make sense either)? I don't know, and you probably won't either, but the fact that many searches for popular and useful software turns up links to malware _before_ the actual software's site doesn't give me great faith in them. Nor does the fact that without verbatim search on, it is almost unusable for me. (But with verbatim it is fantastic.)
|
|
|
|
|
Sent another questionable one your way...
|
|
|
|
|
How top 5 experts of day is calculated?
I think there is a bug.
|
|
|
|
|
The hamsters are given pieces of paper with names on, those that don't get eaten are picked at random.
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong! In that case we had no top-experts list...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Arora_Ankit wrote: I think there is a bug.
Why?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Because he didn't saw his name in it...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Because he didn't saw his name in it...
Perhaps.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
you are right lol
|
|
|
|
|
Arora_Ankit wrote: How top 5 experts of day is calculated?
The system looks at the amount of Authority points you've gained within the latest 24 hours, and displays the people who have gained the most.
Arora_Ankit wrote: I think there is a bug.
Can you provide some explanation about it please?
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
In the list I saw user with 165 points in top 5 and I found mine more than that But I'm not in that 
|
|
|
|
|
It's about the points gained in the latest 24 hours, not all time. Are you sure you have gained more than 165 points the latest 24 hours? And as Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter said, it is a cached list, so it takes some time before it's updated.
The quick red ProgramFOX jumps right over the Lazy<Dog>.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes possible that it has some cache or some delay in refresh.
Note:-
I have ~190 for 14/oct/2014 these are Authority points. if I count total for the day then it will be much more.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
