|
I just think C++ devs are of a higher calibre and deeply introspective. They are the strong, silent types who need comment only when necessary, unlike the chattering magpies in the web/UI development world.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I just think C++ devs are of a higher calibre and deeply introspective. They are
the strong, silent types who need comment only when necessary, unlike the
chattering magpies in the web/UI development world.
Thanks. That's a nice way of saying no to me 
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: it seems CPians are predominantly a managed crowd these days.
Are you serious? have you been to the lounge, soapbox , back room lately.
I wouldn't call that managed, more like chaos
(for those who can't see the icon I know he didn't mean managed like that )
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: it seems CPians are predominantly a managed crowd these days
I beg to differ. They are completely unmanageable.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I beg to differ. They are completely unmanageable.
Perhaps you need a more aggressive GC then? 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if we could handle a more agressive Christian.
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Guests are real people too, y'know.
Again, Chris, I don't see this in the site documentation. Just saying. 
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
I like this idea. The good thing about member views is that Chris has the member ID to avoid showing duplicate views, so four values could actually be shown:
Guest views: 455
Member views: 514
Unique member views: 100
Member views by members who are not you: 103
Somebody in an online forum wrote: INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: Member views by members who are not you:
|
|
|
|
|
1,2,3 are already non-anonymous. So those votes are very rare (unless the article totally sucks). So it's mostly 4s and 5s these days. And a 4 is very often cast when an article features in the top-5 on the front page. Making 4 votes non-anonymous would be awesome!
Not that I can't take low-votes (taken 100s in my life, can take several 100s more before I am down). But I feel that this would make things better.
I bet many other regular authors here would agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a suggestion for you, Nish, but I can't remember it now. 
|
|
|
|
|
Huh? 
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I bet many other regular authors here would agree with me
I think Hans had a suggestion for you... Maybe he's forgotten
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I think Hans had a suggestion for you... Maybe he's forgotten
thatraja
My Tip/Tricks
My Dad had a Heart Attack on this day so don't...
All these are my opinions. Different people. different way of thinking. I am no one to judge others - Chandru
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously though, what's the thinking behind this? If 1, 2, and 3 are non-anonymous, why not 4?
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice getting a 4. I want to encourage members to give 4 (and 5!) for great articles. If an article is poor then it helps those looking to sort the wheat from the chaff to get a lower vote (since it means we can provide a x/5 score, instead of just a # upvotes, which is impossible to compare relatively). However, downvotes mean something's wrong, and the entire purpose of CodeProject is to help devs learn, so by forcing a comment on a downvote you are helping explain the issue. Saying something's great doesn't require an explanation.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Saying something's great doesn't require an explanation.
Yeah I wasn't looking for one. You already automate a comment for 1-3 votes (My vote of x). I was hoping something similar for 4 votes as well. This way anyone voting a 4 will not be inconvenienced at all (except that a comment would be auto-posted under his name revealing his name and vote).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Nish on this. 4 has become the new 1, and isn't being used to say an article is great - it's just there to get stuff off the top of the "latest best picks" list, which is counter productive. If an article is great, then a comment saying why you think it's not quite worthy of a 5 should be the least you can do.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting. I shall tinker.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome! 
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome mate. Simply awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: I'm with Nish on this. 4 has become the new 1
Thank you. 4 is indeed the new 1. And 4s are most often cast by *gasp* Platinum authors.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO article votes should always be non-anonymous and invite to comment. That is the way to provide an honnest voting system; as long as voting different scores takes different amounts of effort, or has different side-effects, the voting system is biasing the results; which obviously it shouldn't.
Now if 4 were non-anonymous and 5 were still anonymous, we would probably see fewer 4's and more 5's for the same article, effectively compressing the scale even further than it is already. A very bad idea.
I never understood why anonymous article votes should be possible; is there anything wrong in saying you liked or disliked an article? If we can store all the rep stuff, adding one message (if there isn't one already) to each article vote won't swamp the disks, will it?
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: IMO article votes should always be non-anonymous
That's basically what I am suggesting here. wasn't that clear from the original message?
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: wasn't that clear from the original message?
No it wasn't, at least not to me. The subject line says 4, not 4 and 5. So does the message.
Changing how 4 works without changing 5 would be very bad, changing both to mimic the behavior of the system when voting 1,2, or 3 would be good.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
