|
I've been looking at this year's MVP list, I noticed Josh Smith on the list. It seems a bit counter-productive to include someone who hasn't posted in 2013 to the list of MVPs awarded on the basis of rep points gained in 2013. Wouldn't it be better if the MVP-er filters out members who haven't posted in the previous year (or some other, better, criteria, possibly rep gained on items posted that year - I suppose one problem would be people posting in December the previous year)?
Not wanting to pick on Josh in particular, - just he is a high-profile member who is also well known to not really have been active lately. I dare say there are others on the list like this.
|
|
|
|
|
It's always a question of "What makes a member valuable?" and for us we answered this question be tallying up the points that member received in the Author and Authority categories throughout the year.
The subtlety here is that points can still be awarded for content posted a previous year, but the truth is that of all members on CodeProject Josh's work help more people than 10,297,595 other members' work and so we consider him a Most Valuable Professional.
If we did it only on content posted during the year (which I'm happy to discuss) then you have a situation where those members who post stuff earlier in the year are unduly biased compared to those who post their stuff later in the year. At least with the current implementation if someone posts an absolute scorcher on Dec 31, their article will help contribute to their MVP tally for the following year.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you've missed the main tenor of my message, or I wasn't clear: That it is obviously a nonsense to award MVP status to someone who hasn't been active (by which I mean at least actually posting something) for a whole year. Does CP want to send the message that inactive members who've written articles in the past are "more valuable" than those who continue to contribute? It also makes it harder for newer members to get the status, which isn't good for an incentive/reward scheme. Only including content from a given year was a suggested improvement - I did point out at least one flaw even with this, I can't come up with a full criteria or weighting system as I don't know what CP wants, but I do think the debate should be opened up as rewarding lapsed users in favour of current ones seems futile to me.
Slightly off topic - the system also heavily favours article writing as these tend to keep accumulating points for ages, whereas Q&A is quite often a quick burst of activity & rep, than rarely to be seen again later. I've written enough (just) to know how much goes into an article, but this even this can be small compared to the effort consistent effort applied by some people in Q&A and forum answers over a given year, yet the "author" writer will continue to be rewarded for several years, the "authority" largely won't.
[Edit]
Fixed some of the wording, as though I meant what I wrote, I didn't write what I meant. Or something. I'm from Gateshead and went to a comprehensive school, so I'm doing well to be able to read frankly.
modified 2-Jan-14 12:11pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I do understand the main tenor of the message and am trying to explain the pros and cons. To your point about articles vs Quick Answers: CodeProject is primarily an article site and that was the focus of the MVP awards initially. However, the members who spend an inordinate amount of time helping out in the discussion forums and Quick Answers should also be rewarded and so we specifically choose MVPs separately from the top 20 article authors and the top 20 Authorities in the forums and Quick Answers.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: However, the members who spend an inordinate amount of time helping out in the discussion forums and Quick Answers should also be rewarded and so we specifically choose MVPs separately from the top 20 article authors and the top 20 Authorities in the forums and Quick Answers.
I think you should add this as a preamble to the MVP page (or the criteria generally), it isn't clear that this is what happens, I though this was based on an amalgamated score from the technical parts of the site.
I do think the original point still stands taking authors into account as a separate category - we're not rewarding the addition of new work, which is a bad thing on a technical site. I'd suggest we weight against the freshness of the article, but even this is flawed, some things remain useful in IT for a very long time, others (generally technology-specific stuff) less so.
Ho hum.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Keith,
Very often, authors continue to support older articles published years ago. Not saying this has happened for every author who got picked as MVP this year, but it does happen more often that you may imagine. Support may be offline across email, or through the article's forum, or even subtle code updates not mentioned in the article body or not visible as a version/date change. So it's not as if an author publishes his/her article and is then done with it. Thought I'd throw in this perspective as well.
There are also interesting aspects to consider. Example: someone asks a question in the Q/A section. Person-A answers it by posting a link to Person-B's article. The OP marks Person-A's response as the answer and upvotes him. Person-A gets credit here but really all he/she did was to point the OP to person-B's article. So they both have value - A and B, just that A's value stands out a little more here than B's because A's the active person in this context.
[edit] - typo-fix
modified 2-Jan-14 13:33pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I second that.
When I was writing my tesis (at the beggining of my membership in CP) I was helped a lot by 2 or 3 people in the active forums, but I solved a lot of problems I was having with articles 2 or 3 years old. I sent some emails to the authors and they explained me things out of message boards or forums. So yes... for me they were more useful than many other newer articles.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Sivakumar wrote: Not saying this has happened for every author who got picked as MVP this year,
No, it didn't ... not by any stretch of the imagination ...
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the school  ... although most of them seem to have been demolished now
|
|
|
|
|
I think blogposts are not coming in latest articles section(but it shows Tip/Tricks too) in home page. Is it only me or ?
EDIT
---------
I clicked the dropdownmenu "Tech Blogs" under "Latest articles" menu. But it's showing nothing**. This's the first time I noticed this option.
But I always prefer this page[^] for latest things.
EDIT 2
----------
Web01 | 2.7.131230.1 | IE7* 
EDIT 3
----------
In chrome it's working**. So ignore this. Hereafter I'll check with other browsers before posting things like this.
*at work
thatrajaCode converters | Education Needed
No thanks, I am all stocked up. - Luc Pattyn
When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is - Henry Minute
modified 2-Jan-14 13:27pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Tons of problems replying to posts in Q&A. Most attempts fail to post after 3 tries. Happening in both IE10 and Chrome 31.0.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - had a bit of a 32bit meltdown. Back to 64bit and it's all good again.
(Long story)
|
|
|
|
|
I take a lot of care to try and make my responses to QA questions informative, include tested code I have verified works, and responsive to the needs, and level of programming knowledge, of the OP, but, of course, like everyone, I can benefit from a response being edited.
It is kind of amusing to see some folks make incredibly insignificant changes to a response; I have the sense that, for some, code they perceive as interesting induces a behavioral expression of the "pat a dog on its head" instinct
What would be very helpful to me would be to have appended to the response the summary of edit/changes that one must enter after you edit someone's QA response via the "What did you change" text-field.
thanks, Bill
“There are obvious things, and there are many obvious things no one tried, because no one needed to try them.” Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov, January 1, 2014
|
|
|
|
|
QA is focussed on questions and answers, not on the mechanics of how the various parties negotiated with each other into getting to the resolution. I fear that bringing too much focus on the changes and edits would distract from the primary value: the answers themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be difficult to make mandatory to fill the "what have you changed" textbox when editing an answer?
I know one could write "aslfdhnsa adfn" (as downvoting), but I don't think the people that take the time to make an edition would mind to give that info. When I edit a message many times I just forget to fill it before clicking "post".
That could cover part of Bill's suggestion, because checking the versions history is not so useful if the box was not filled at the edition and you need to dig deeper to know what was changed.
The "compare versions" function is pretty cool as it is and already delivers the needed information about the content differences between versions.
P.S. if it would be implemented, then please don't reload the page to give the error, to avoid losing the changes made.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently sent a private e-mail to a CP member via CP's (I assume) anonymous e-mail facility, and I received an e-mail reply to my personal account which showed what appears to be the real personal e-mail address of the sender.
I expected to see some "mailbox-unattended" type return address. I assume the recipient did not receive my personal e-mail.
fyi: even though I now have all notifications of any type turned off in my Account Preferences: today, for the first time, in a long time, I got a notification red-flag: the notification was an alert to the response to my e-mail sent to the person mentioned above.
thanks, Bill
“There are obvious things, and there are many obvious things no one tried, because no one needed to try them.” Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov, January 1, 2014
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the "email" link in a message will do what you have described. The email you received should have been from the user and not from @codeprojectcom so that should have tipped you off. I haven't used the feature but I think it should prompt the user to warn them that private emails will be sent.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The private email link does that deliberately since it's effectively like sending an email. The recipient needs to know who's sending the email so they can reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Chris, I had assumed the recipient of a private e-mail would see only my CodeProject User Name, not my personal e-mail address.
yours, Bill
“There are obvious things, and there are many obvious things no one tried, because no one needed to try them.” Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov, January 1, 2014
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there:
All Code Project articles I open with Mozilla Firefox, don't show well.
I tried reinstalling Flash Player but apparently CodeProject doesn't use it.
At this moment I'm using Google Chrome, but my preferred browser is FireFox.
What do you suggest me to do?
Rafael
|
|
|
|
|
"don't show well" isn't really enough to go on. I'm viewing the articles in Safari, Firefox and Chrome and they look the same in all.
What's the issue? Any plug-ins installed? Tried hitting Ctrl+F5 to force a reload?
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I thought, some plug-in like Flash Player, but, the problem disappeared, I didn't do anything, may be it was a temporary problem at their server.
Thank you for answering
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like I can give my own posts 5 out of 5 stars every day. Each day I do this, it adds an entry on the reputation list log showing the date and time I voted. It only allows this once per day, but it allows it every day. However, the points to not accumulate in my total, so I consider this a minor bug. They only appear as if they will be adding to my total on my reputation list.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - you can upvote yourself. And if you revote, your old points are removed and new points added for the new vote. A possibly self-fulfilling but ultimately futile exercise
|
|
|
|
|
I should start giving myself an upvote or two every day to get me in the "winning" mood.
Thanks for the New Years Resolution Chris!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
