|
gone
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should we add this as an option when reporting questions?
What I'd like to do is add a watermark or template to the question editor along the lines of
Subject:
Quote: How do I...?
Text:
Quote: I am trying to... [state what you're trying to do]
The problem I'm seeing is ...[state the error or incorrect behaviour]
I have searched
a) [Google]
b) etc
I have tried
a) [What I tried, what happened]
b) [What I tried, what happened]
c) ...
The goal here is to guide members on how to ask a question in a way that will get an answer. If a member, given this guidance, still can't pose their question sensibly, then they get reported and possibly removed.
The aim isn't to turn everyone into a bunch of unhelpful, unforgiving pricks. The goal is to guide, to teach, and to ultimately remove those who simply don't want to make an effort when they are asking for help.
Would this work? Would it help? Would it be counter-productive? Or would this do nothing?
@BillWoodruff: I'd particularly like your input here.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion this could help in some of the cases. However, the ones that are in a hurry to leave the question will probably also disregards the watermark. I'm afraid that the majority of incomplete questions are the latter ones.
What if instead of using a 'template' the question would actually be split into several portions meaning text boxes that would have to be filled with some amount of characters. Two (or three at max) separate and mandatory fields could actually stop the person to think about what and how to ask.
|
|
|
|
|
The option of separate boxes has been raised a number of times and my issue is that not all questions fit into such a rigid template. Sometimes there simply isn't code, sometimes there's several sets of code, sometimes the person has tried something, sometimes they don't even know where to start, sometimes there's nothing to "try": it's simply a question.
Further, we see enough questions in the title. I'd expect we'd see the entire question in the first box, regardless.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Do I understand the reported question is removed from public view and the author is given the opportunity to republish it in an amended form.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Adding the option won't help on it's own: it'll just become another "dump this" button for the usual suspects. But...what if it did something useful as well as removing the question? If a question gets "no effort" reports, then an email is sent to the author explaining what we need them to do, and what is wrong with the question? That hopefully would be a positive response, educating the OP on how to ask an effective question. Dump "Not a question", get rid of any rep points for using "no effort" to discourage casual use and it might help.
The watermark option is a good idea, but it would have to be a number of text boxes each with a separate watermark in order to work properly - and we already get people who post the whole question in the "subject" box so I'm not sure those that need help are going to notice... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Emails sent to posters to fix their question won't (in my experience) work that well. If someone's lazy / rushed / doesn't give a toss then an email won't magically change that.
I want the poor questions fixed or removed. They don't even need to be fixed by the author (so my other thought is Serious Points for those who fix up questions).
Agree on the problem with text boxes. See my reply[^] to Mika.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: my other thought is Serious Points for those who fix up questions
Presumably with safeguards against abuse? Otherwise, you'll get people deliberately posting crap questions for their mates to "fix". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: deliberately posting crap questions for their mates to "fix"
If they "fix" them to make them decent questions then I say go for it.
(How much entertainment can one get from doing this all day, every day?)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
OK, how would you verify that the fix actually made it a decent question? Wouldn't you need a new moderation queue for fixed questions?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
And how would you tell that the fixed version actually asked what the user wanted to know?
I'd be well annoyed if I posted a question and someone changed it to a completely different problem.
And on the abuse side, what's to stop people fixing a question to something they do know the answer to?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
That can happen currently, but I get your point: encouraging people to edit questions will lead to more abuse (though I see almost zero abuse at the moment).
I think this is an edge case. I'd rather double the quality of questions and risk 1% abusing the system than do nothing.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
For the very few who will abuse the system it would be worth it, I think.
It's about balance.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If someone's lazy / rushed / doesn't give a toss then an email won't magically change that.
If someone belongs to those two groups... it won't actually be a big drama to lose them.
If someone rushed... if the question is really so important and urgent... I would try to improve it to get the answer I need.
Just with a correction / optimization of the question in 10% of the times... you will have teached some legitime users to do it right, and for me that is already a good improvement.
Chris Maunder wrote: I want the poor questions fixed or removed.
Fixed is the point of this idea. Removed... they already get removed soon enough.
Chris Maunder wrote: my other thought is Serious Points for those who fix up questions
Then you will probably have some new volunteers to the editors group 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Here I am again, going off ...
But, the problem is not with the poster. The problem is with the genius who thinks he has the potential answer.
And I don't even think much more has to be said on THIS matter after THIS revelation.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's worth elaborating on this.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, the classic where-the-what.
I slept on this post last night and gave it a little thought while in a deep trough of theta wave. How about introducing trial membership for all newbs? Which means automatic expiry if conditions factor into the introduction.
A good idea because when someone appreciates my answer to his question I get points.
Let's cut there.
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote: How about introducing trial membership for all newbs? Which means automatic expiry if conditions factor into the introduction
Not sure what you mean by this (ie what's the specifics?)
Anything that makes it hard for new members is not good. It should be simple for new members, powerful for those who have been around longer.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Specifically include notification that their membership is about to expire. That they need to act in order to keep their account.
CP is cluttered with posts that are complete rubbish. But this garbage persists because, for various and sundry reasons, not the least of which is making comments in the answer textbox, the developer djin is prone to be quick, inexact because he expects no follow up, dismissive because he wants to climb the point ladder, and just being a bad jurist because it's time to post some code (not just a link) when legitimacy begins to unfold.
Another idea is to floor/ceiling the input amount on behalf of both parties.
In summation, a memory model more beholden to nature where membership and ability have some logical relationship other than the present shooting gallery idiom where some have guns and the rest are dogs without leashes.
|
|
|
|
|
You're hoping someone's behaviour regarding posts will be influenced by a threat to end membership.
As much as I would like to think membership of CodeProject is a valuable thing, it carries probably zero weight to those who can't be bothered to form a proper question.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not removing the message. Let the filters learn....
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
