|
I have a feeling there was liquid happiness involved.
It would explain a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling that copious amounts of happiness were involved!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhere between Bob Geldof and DD, I'd say.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm mightily interested in knowing how the rest of that scale looks like.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks kinda wobbly.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed you are, but you're not coming through as thinskinned to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone can say absolutely anything to/about me in fun, but I reserve the right to not accept maliciousness (that's kinda one of the things that being English is about).
I don't think he was being soberly malicious; it read more like he was drunk and bombastic (annoyance level +1), he somewhat strongly implied that everyone was idiotic for not getting his opinion by looking at a wiki page (annoyance level +2), and he would not say what he was talking about (annoyance level +2).
So yeah, "a little peeved" describes it well enough.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I've just learned that some of his 'controversial' post, may be because of using Google Translate to communicate with us...
But even not - he is not spammer or abusive...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Controversial, only if you don't agree with him.
But troll, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: The same platinum member who has done this a number of times.
We want names ! We want names ! Let's do public shaming ! 
|
|
|
|
|
I second that. 
I think they already implemented that. I even recall seeing the members' names on a member's profile whom they had reported. Not sure why they have undone that now... 
Your time will come, if you let it be right.
modified 2-Mar-15 5:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, stop, I was being sarcastic ! I don't think public shaming would solve anything, but make it worse !
|
|
|
|
|
Rage wrote: I was being sarcastic
Oh, I don't always get sarcasm. 
But seriously, they did implement public disclosure of the members who had voted a member on his "closed" profile page and I think it was a good idea. Not sure why they have discontinued it though.
Your time will come, if you let it be right.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean you will instate Bruno?
I suspect the shouting was a case of alcohol too far...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 28-Feb-15 11:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
In the ASP.NET section[^], I was told that is not about questions and answers only, but it is for discussions too.
So why is the text on the button "Ask question"? Shouldn't that be "New discussion" as it is here. I believe that would make more sense, since I had to add a suggestion, not a question; that was ambiguous there.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote: I had to add a suggestion
You would have used this forum. Name itself says it all.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
I shouldn't post that here, because that wasn't a suggestion for this website or its developers, instead it was for general ASP.NET developers.
Anyways, Richard had me covered and helped me to post such stuff as a tip.
Thanks for your time too Rohan.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't the author of an article (also tip/trick) know who voted and what voted in his work? I do not mean unveiling the voter's identity, but the voter's status. For instance, status like: admin, mvp, author, less-than-30-days-old-member, etc... This would allow the author of an article to conclude more consistent information about his/her work. Maybe this is already possible, but I don't find the correct button to click.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes: Because to make it transparent.
No: To avoid to fight back.
If one publish an article/tip/trick one has to be ready to get the Feedback. So I think it is not needed to known who has voted, but a must should be that downvote Needs to be commented.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You agree with me, although you didn't perceived it. There's no risk of any fight, because as I wrote in my OP, "I do not mean unveiling the voter's identity". So, any fight back is impossible. But, it is important to know the "vote quality".
|
|
|
|
|
To some extent you can already see this information since the votes are weighted. Have a look at http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/Reputation.aspx[^]
On the other hand, your suggestion makes an assumption that a vote from a member with more points is more valuable than a vote from a member with low points. Personally I don't see any reason why this would be true
|
|
|
|
|
The whole mess could be cured. I've suggested a reasonable change and it has been rejected. If they'd just convert to a "Is useful" voting system, an article's worth could be more easily construed, there would be no negative connotations (it would virtually end the whining from article authors, such as myself), and it could even be used to add a more social aspect (and transparency) to the site by showing who found the article useful.
".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
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I've suggested a reasonable change and it has been rejected.
You've suggested a change, but you've not provided a solution that solves the issue we're looking to solve: how do you tell the good articles from the bad.
We've discussed this many, many times and I've pointed out the core issue, yet I've not seen a response to this.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: an article's worth could be more easily construed
But how?
OK, so let's go through this again.
Article A has 100 "this is useful" votes.
Article B has 10 "this is useful" votes.
1. There's absolutely zero way that you can compare the two articles: Article A may have been up for 2 years and B might have been posted today. How do you order A and B? Do you look at "useful votes per day"? Do you just go on absolute numbers? Do you not even both ordering articles so there's no longer a concept of "the best articles"?
2. What if A was on ASP.NET 5 and had a thousand readers in 2 days so garnered votes due to popularity of content. Article B is on [insert really obscure technology] and gets a viewer a week. Every single viewer think B rocks and it's percentage of upvotes from engaged, critical viewers is high. So do we look at "upvotes per viewer"? Do we add other voting categories such as "Enjoyment factor", "Technical accuracy", and "I really like the author"?
3. How many spurious friends & family votes has article A had? What about B? The friends & family vote makes a mockery of any system that doesn't allow balancing contra votes. Even adding different voting categories will not help since F&F will abuse this too. So do we add a skills test before you can vote? Get someone to answer a question related to the article to show they understand it? Obviously that's hard to scale. Or we could limit voting to those who have status. This then dramatically limits the number of votes we get, meaning the voting becomes even less statistically valid.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: it could even be used to add a more social aspect (and transparency) to the site by showing who found the article useful.
And now we get to the interesting part.
What if we made voting totally open. You vote, your name is shown in a list of voters? Each article shows a list of people who liked it, and if you click the list you'll also see those who didn't like it. You get an email "Hey - John just up-voted your article - nice!" (but no negative emails?)
This makes it open and more accountable.
Let's extend this a little more, maybe: What if we had two scores: A popular vote (all votes are included) and Experts Opinion, based on Gold and platinum authors and experts only.
Then you avoid the F&F issue, but you introduce statistical issues of validity. You have accountability, but you also get balanced votes. And if you get a downvote from a high-rep author, then stop whining and discuss it. Maybe they are wrong, or maybe you need to have a good hard look and realise your article could use a polish.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
