|
38/40 (with a little help on some of the artists).
The only one I didn't get was obvious once I saw the answer! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't No 6 Kacey Musgraves then? I don't know what the actual answer is yet but it's gotta be less logical!
Edit: no 6 not 8, obviously!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you haven't got the right title. 
Hint: The background colour matters.
(Select the black blob to read the hint.)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Ah , that one! I still say my answer's more logical though!
|
|
|
|
|
Spoiler: They're all in the javascript.
(Select the black blob to read the spoiler.)
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's just cheating! 
If you're going to cheat, there's a "see all the answers" link when you first load the page. Far easier than your option! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted you to know, again. 
|
|
|
|
|
I really, really, really like it. 
Yes, it gives some false positives.
But...the amount of rubbish it catches is staggering - and if 10% of that had got through, we still be having spam floods every other day. We had over 2000 items in the spam detector queue at one point! Can you imagine how much fun it would have been to clear that lot up manually, with bots posting it faster than an uncoordinated dozen of us could delete it?
You wouldn't have been able to a single genuine post anywhere on the site!
Yes, it catches me sometimes. So? I can live with a couple of minutes delay in posting 1% of my messages.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I am not privy to these wonderful statistics. I am glad to hear that evil is being reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe your post just looked like spam
|
|
|
|
|
Kawaii Bob wrote: Maybe your post just looked like spam
Not good enough for me, personally. The algorithm/software needs to do better than that. There really needs to be a "trusted user" aspect to all of this. However, I don't think that will be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
You really think this crew of ne'er do wells should ever be 'trusted'?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, actually.
Some of us have been with the site for over 5+ years. Some have many published articles, and are regarded to be trustworthy. It's a no brainer, in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
And as Chris said a couple of weeks ago, high-rep members have been known to post spam.
Is this the "high rep members don't post spam" argument? I would give you counter-examples if it wasn't a breach of decency.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I am not even talking about high-rep members. Rep has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about trustworthy members.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that not only do long-term members suddenly get a new job and start posting spam, but some of us are less careful than perhaps we should be with our password quality.
Should we allow my account to be free to post what I want? What if someone guesses my password (Good luck with that chaps!) and hijacks my account? We are talking about bots here: fully capable of posting hundreds of messages a minute (heck in the last spam flood some of 'em were well into double digits per second!)
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
I highly doubt any of the spam CP is getting is from hijacked accounts. If so, I would like to see the numbers.
Codeproject is not international spy stuff. Let's not get carried away with this.
|
|
|
|
|
I very much doubt it is! But that doesn't mean it couldn't be.
This is a good target site: high membership, high traffic, easy signup, easy post. If they get the idea that hacking accounts will benefit them, do you doubt they would try? And the weakest link is always the human who decides what the password is.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Emilio Largo wrote: I'm talking about trustworthy members
You're asking for a hand-picked exemption from any spam filtering, I assume?
This isn't actually that hard. We have a "Trusted Author" designation, so adding a "Trusted Poster" would be straightforward.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You're asking for a hand-picked exemption from any spam filtering, I assume?
This isn't actually that hard. We have a "Trusted Author" designation, so adding a "Trusted Poster" would be straightforward.
That sounds just like me, Trusted Poster. Do I get a badge and a hat?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
We have a whole separate category for you, Mick.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: We have a whole separate category for you, Mick.
Legend?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
uh...yeah. That's exactly what I was thinking...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You're asking for a hand-picked exemption from any spam filtering, I assume?
Yes, that is what I am referring to. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
|
You now have Trusted Poster status.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
