A question posted [^]hardly an hour ago and it already has 1200+ views? Comparing to other questions, that hardly cross 100 even in couple of days! Is the data right? I sense something wrong... can someone confirm?
Based on this post[^] i too was looking at Who's who code and was trying to get my status...
Things i observed:
1. I cannot jump directly to a certain page number... i played along with querystring to land up where i wanted to
2. Again, the order by was working but it didn't modify the query string accordingly. Like, from default of MemberId to Messagecount, again i have to change that in url to jump to specific page.
3. Based on new reputation system and new Q&A forum + Tip/Trick forum, there should be more filter criteria's. Like, order by number of Q&A Answer's posted, Tip/Tricks posted, by different rep categories like - authority, organizer, etc!
Based on new reputation system and new Q&A forum + Tip/Trick forum, there should be more filter criteria's. Like, order by number of Q&A Answer's posted, Tip/Tricks posted, by different rep categories like - authority, organizer, etc!
I guess that will eventually come into CP!
However, its not high priority - this was the first time I actually when to the Who's who page and sorted by "number of messages".
While I wonder why that answer can't be deleted (no edits, posted by a noob, 2 downvotes, no upvotes), you typically handle these types of scenarios by clicking the "Report" link at the bottom of the answer. Still, you may have come across a bug (I don't see why that answer can't be deleted).
Here is my personal opinion: the way voting works on CP really sucks. It discourages new authors and is a constant source of unhappiness.
I'm not going to get into a long philosophical discussion here. I just have one suggestion. Eliminate the 1-5 voting system, and replace it with a 0-1 system. If you like an article/post, vote 1. If you don't like it, don't vote. The total vote is additive, and can only increase, not decrease. Result: no more drive-by downvoting.
I like the 1-to-5 scale a lot. It allows readers to express their opinion, and even convey a little nuance. One could/should interpret the numbers as very bad, bad, neutral, good, and very good. Aggregating a lot of votes results in the community score for the article/message.
I'm definitely not in favor of any asymmetric scheme, like the one you propose. An article/message on a specialized topic would not get many readers and votes, and would probably score less than a mediocre article/message on a popular topic.
The univoter phenomenon isn't really worrying. It does not occur often, and it gets compensated by the community pretty soon. The worst effect it has IMO is a young article, when hit by an undeserved 1, immediately disappears from the "Latest Best Picks" on the home page.
The one thing that might be needed is stimulating all readers to vote on everything they read. The motto should be: if you care enough to read it, you should also care enough to vote (and when you do, please try to vote accurately). You, the reader, are part of the community, so let your opinion count, let it be included in the average. You should not vote on things you haven't read, or don't care about; when you care, you vote.
And finally, with a sufficient number of readers also casting votes, the univoters would be completely outnumbered and most of them might just abandon their silly game.