|
|
|
|
|
Spam[^]y[^]
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Spam gone, spammer now on 8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great. And I wrote an answer
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Not a spam question, just off-topic! I have voted for it being off-topic, you can do so and let the question be closed, because it is of no good for audience. Who uses SQL Server 2005 (of Express edition) now a days?
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Who uses SQL Server 2005 (of Express edition) now a days? You're going to be unpleasantly surprised
|
|
|
|
|
Those who would surprise me are not a big surprise at all
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
It's not spam of itself, but it's "setup-spam" - it's been posted so his sock puppet can post the "solution" which is (surprise surprise) made by his company.
We get it a lot with corrupt Access, SQL, and Excel files.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
That does make sense, or maybe this user is a sock puppet of someone who might be spamming; might be.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
You totally misunderstood the post..
Ignore it just ignore it man...
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone just reported my answer :-/
I deleted it.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Just for clarification, it wasn't me.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't think so
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of interest: Do you have a tool to identify plagiates or do you google it manually?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Check this[^] and look at the first link.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
You're saying it doesn't take much effort to google it manually because the plagiarists don't make a great effort to hide it?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Sascha Lefévre wrote: because the plagiarists don't make a great effort to hide it
Even if they put a great effort, Google will never help them,but us. And with that help, we have a huge force to find out almost every single plagiarised content.
Programmer : A machine that converts coffee into code !
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, so no revolutionary idea for a project
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I do it manually - similar to the search Rohan posted. In this case I used Quote: Holds the connection open until you are finished (don't forget to close it!). If I come across a phrase that looks "unusual" compared to the rest of the style of a particular article or other posts by the member then I tend to use that in my search. I'm afraid experience has made me guilty of some racial profiling in this regard (I am not pleased with this )
Another one I often use is the text that annotates any images or class/variable/method names that are a little different to the "norm"
I've become so cynical about the quality of "articles" being submitted these days that I tend to assume they are plagiarised and will check several phrases within each.
|
|
|
|