|
"How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#?"
You actually have lots of options here.
1. Mark it as unclear or incomplete if you feel that it's too ambiguous
2. Downvote it and move on.
3. Answer it.
4. Post a comment asking the user to expand on what their problem actually is given that a simple Google search brings up a million answers. Maybe they have a specific issue.
For me there are no stupid questions. There are lazy people, or people who can't ask questions properly due to language or personality, and people who don't know enough to know how to ask the question.
Option 4 - getting the poster to update their question to explain why he's asking such an obvious question, and asking for a rundown of what's beem tried - is by far the best.
The trick is: how do we do this, and how long do we give a question before it gets categorised into the Lazy Question bucket.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I think that my main concern here is not the number of visitors but rather the number of professionals who are willing to put up with this type of question. I think that Gemmell hits the nail on the head with his post Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
You may wish to fix that link. 
|
|
|
|
|
It's worse than that. My response was about four paragraphs long. What you see is a very small portion of it. Code Project needs to fix a number of errors on the site or I will definitely stop using Code Project. Too bad.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I inject the word "stupid" into the conversation.
Hmmm, stupid me, huh ?
|
|
|
|
|
For a start we can stop the bitchiness from the answerers. Yes! I said it! Bitchiness!
Once someone has responded with a "you can google it" why can't everyone else just either a) move on or b) post an answer (as happened with the question quoted by the OP.
Personally I think a stock answer of "you could have googled it - here's a link to a site you would have found - if what you find there isn't clear, update your question appropriately" could be available - and that locks the question to further updating except by the OP.
I always thought the really really simple questions were a move by OG's sockpuppet account to boost his points
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think if you have not been active on that forum for a while what you witness may come as a shock. I think the credibility of the forum has become diluted by a deluge of really hopeless questions AND answers. Here I make every allowance for those that have English as a second language. It is very often quite obvious a question has substance even though the English is very bad. For those that choose to act as experts there are comments and answers. Many seem to have no concept of the difference and the experienced lead the novices. There are also answers submitted for questions that are totally incomplete and waiting for elaboration from the questioner. Then there are answers delivered as homilies with no technical content which are voted up and oddly sometimes accepted. These contribute nothing to the quality of the Q&A but are just part and parcel of what it has become driven very much by the bizarre and quite ruthless chasing of points.
[Edit]
I don't want to sound completely negative. I find the Q&A very absorbing at times - there are some very good discussions initiated. The quality of many questions and answers is excellent. Answering questions is quite a challenging exercise and is what I think keeps many interested.
I wonder if a template such as for article submission with sections for question, what have I tried, which words did I google, and code for example would improve the focus of questioners.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 13-Apr-14 23:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Peter,
I agree (sadly) with your diagnosis, but I do not think the patient's condition is "terminal," and all we can do is provide hospice-care ...
I believe strongly that we (CP members), and CP staff, can change this for the better.
In the meantime, if you and I choose to "hang in there" with QA, no matter how wild the ride, well ... we can continue, as I observe you, and others, doing ... as I hope I am doing ... to give thoughtful clarifying questions to help posters make their questions clearer, and give on-topic, helpful, solutions with tested code, and focused links to resources.
And, we can reward, with our votes, and comments, behavior by others that exhibits what we evaluate as "quality," and "virtue."
To the extent our behavior models what we'd like to see QA become, I believe we are a force for positive change: oh yes, that statement is a valid indictment of my character as hopelessly romantic
sincerely, Bill
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Gus,
Well, I agree with you that there is a major structural problem on QA here, but my diagnosis is a bit more hopeful. I've already posted my thoughts on QA, and suggestions for change, in depth, both on the "Suggs and Buggs" forum, and the Lounge, several times.
"could be used for nefarious purposes" I cannot understand what you mean by this in the context of your post.
There are many reasons a poster ... particularly someone new to programming, or new to CodeProject, and/or someone whose native language is not English ... may present questions that appear confused, or poorly worded. These include cultural factors, personality factors (shyness, fear of making mistakes), as well as the "darker sides" of character, like homework-shirking, laziness, etc. And, some people genuinely don't have a clue, or are overwhelmed by their plunge into programming.
I repeat what I consider the simplest, and best, suggestion I have made: when a person posts a question, do not accept the question for publication on CP unless the OP has checked off some (minimum number of) appropriate tags.
Meanwhile, I hope that all of us here can exhibit the "angelic in our nature" and welcome newcomers, and people from other cultures whose native language is not English, with warmth, and patience, asking helpful clarifying questions in comments.
If the newcomer soon proves to be a homework-shirk, a gimme-leech, an urgentz-feed-my-face-now, exhibits an arrogant sense of entitlement manifested as never responding to direct clarifying questions, etc.: well, let the down-votes begin.
The structural problem with respondents/responses to QA questions is, imho, even more serious, and I've had my say about that, already.
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
|
|
|
|
|
Certain questions delve deeply into issues that I can only say scare me. I am planning to publish an article on traversing web sites. However, I am concerned that it could be used nefariously (aka Prism). So I am hesitant to publish. Likewise with those questions that are advanced in response but beginner in question. So I don't answer them and hope that no one else will.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
"Not a question." would fit just right IMHO. Followed by a STFW and a punch on delete key.
|
|
|
|
|
It was a question. It was just not researched. BTW, vulgarity has no place here.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest reading How to ask questions the smart way[^].
Eric Raymond says it as well:
Stupid: Where can I find out stuff about the Foonly Flurbamatic?
This question just begs for "STFW" as a reply.
Stupid: I'm having problems with my motherboard. Can anybody help?
J. Random Hacker's response to this is likely to be “Right. Do you need burping and diapering, too?” followed by a punch of the delete key.
But I suppose you're right. Your thread, your rules.
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, I feel that member of this site should be treated as the son of this site. As a son/daughter asks his parents for any kind of information, any member should also be allowed to do so;
Let all users from beginners to experts be active participants of codeproject.com.
|
|
|
|
|
You are putting words in my mouth. I am not complaining about a legitimate question, i.e., one for wch the OP cannot find an answer on the web, but rather questions with no indication that the OP even tried.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry!
I misunderstood you.
|
|
|
|
|
First, this is the kind of question asked by someone given an assignment in school. Normally, they aren't answered. However, you have an opportunity to have a little fun.
Come up with an answer that's as advanced as you can come up with. For this one, I'd probably use LINQ or lambdas because it's obvious the guy is in a beginner's class, and any instructor worth his salt will raise an eyebrow at something like that. The more over the top the solution is, the more likely it is that his instructor will notice the work isn't his.
BTW, nothing will change regarding the quality of questions. Someone else already pointed it out - CodeProject's primary goal is to make money, and the number of visitors - regardless of coding adeptitude (I know it's not a word, but it was fun to type) - is how it makes that money.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I am strongly against that approach. As other have suggested there are no stupid questions. I generally agree. But if a young'un is having problems, one of the only call centers that the OP can use is CP. I would think that following your suggestion would pull down the value of this site.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
A young'un having problems ain't the same as a young'un that's too damn lazy to figure out something like a homework assignment on his own, or at the very least, google for an answer. Approach it any way you see fit, but complaining about it in the lounge is pointless.
Either answer the question, or don't.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: Recently ?? I have been visiting quick answers - view unanswered questions.
That question was posted & answered on 26th Oct 2013 !
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, CP allows the OP to repost the question by making a minor Improve question entry. I belive that updates the DTG of the question.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Another issue is that the original poster rarely comes back and marks the answers for correctness 
|
|
|
|
|
I think it may be worse than that - they don't come back to read the solutions!
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
It's a funny world is electronics. A bus has rails, sometimes several of them, only one of which is on the ground. It also has buffers. But these buffers (often bidirectional) are a means of getting on the bus, and they can contend for it. There are usually many conductors on the bus, and many drivers, though each driver should only drive one conductor at any time. The bus has signals, and may also have a clock. If you get on the bus, you may be required to handshake, and if you don't, you may well cause exception. The bus doesn't have a destination, but it does have addresses, maybe billions of them. Some users might have privileged access. Usually, if you miss the bus you have to wait for many cycles
Ger
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
