How much of the spam is from necroaccounts vs just registered ones? (And how many of the necrospamming accounts were used a non-trivial amount?) I think all the times I was trying to nuke something from orbit it was from new accounts.
If most of the spam's from new or almost never used accounts I think the colateral damage from 1 shot to kill is probably too high if it's catching regular users when they annoy some high rep idiot.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
I agree with Dan. I urge that you rethink if it should be possible for a regular's post to be removed with just one vote.
Spammers are anyways being handled well, and in case someone uses an existing account to spam, the existing account won't have much of reputation points (in which case, it isn't considered an important account).
There should be some way to distinguish a contributing regular from a spammer who is using an account registered years ago. I presume the reputation points can help with this and so, it can be put to good use.
My apologies for not replying earlier - we've been insanely busy[^] and emails are piling up.
I did, however, check your article and could find no good reason for it not to appear. I spent a bit of time on the issue and came up blank. As to this week, only articles that were posted in the last 7 days wil appear in a given weekly newsletter.
I noticed that it got 800 views in the first 11 hours after I posted it (I posted it after 9PM, IIRC), and only 200-300 views in the two weeks after that. So it seemed to me like it was revoked from whatever place where people were seeing it (but I don't know how people found it in the first place, I myself just use the newsletter.)
Hey I know, maybe I should edit it. Then it might appear as updated, at least. I see an error in it anyhow.
Wait, what? How are people going to vote on the article if they don't see it in the first place? Should I be doing something extra to gather votes, like, advertising the article somewhere else on the site?
I think you might be informed regarding the issues, anyway the member profile page is not working... for example the page fail to load data most of the time.
A screenshots could be found at the link below:
<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/Uploads/1186309/Untitled.png">http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/Uploads/1186309/Untitled.png</a>[<a href="http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/Uploads/1186309/Untitled.png" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]
Md. <b style="color: #FF9900"> M</b>arufuzzaman
I will not say I have failed 1000 times; I will say that I have discovered 1000 ways that can cause failure – Thomas Edison.
I feel that the placement of "about article" box is not very obvious. I needed to bookmark an article, but it took me a while to spot where this option was. I think the box with options like bookmark, print, email etc., should be made more prominent and clearly visible. The white space wasted as I've indicated in this image can be used to place this box, and it should preferably be given a different colour border or something to be made more prominent.
You can't downvote them in the non-programming forums, a change which was established with the start of the year 2013. Upvoting should be still enabled, in the programming forums is up- and downvoting enabled.
When I hover over the insider menu (the one on the left) I get a icon next to my mouse with the 'loading' spinning thingy.
So it seems it's trying to load something but can't
I only get this on that particular menu (as far as I can see).
I only have this in chrome (26.0.1410.43 m) and with the extension 'hover zoom' enabled (this displays the image behind a url when hovering over the url (if the url leads to an image)) so that would mean that there is something wrong with the link from 'insider news' (I think).
Anyway not that important but figured I'd let you know