|
It'd be nice to see something like that.
Guest views : 455
Member views : 514
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
What value would this add?
Guests are real people too, y'know.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: What value would this add? Guests are real people too, y'know.
I was just wondering about views to votes/comments ratio. Many recent C++ articles here (and not just mine) get 1000s of views but few votes/comments. Compare this to SL/ASP.NET/WPF articles which seem to attract votes/comments. I've seen SL/WPF articles get as many as 15 votes before the view count hits 500. Meanwhile a C++ article I recently posted hit 1000 views with 0 votes or comments. I've observed the same with Mike Dunn's recent Windows 7 articles (most excellent I may add).
I feel that C++ articles are read more by guests here than members. And based on Lounge discussions, it seems CPians are predominantly a managed crowd these days. I just wanted some actual data to back up my theory
[if it's too much load to do this for everyone, could you at least enable it for gold/platinum-only?]
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|