|
Rohit Sinha wrote:
Grey head!
Possibly it's just age? 
But I am fantastic in bed! And there are gorgeous women in all the houses I pass. And it would be wrong to leave them unsatisfied! So spam is the only way... - Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Megan Forbes wrote:
Possibly it's just age?
Yeah, age does seem to start taking its toll after 27 years.
Regards,
Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Rohit Sinha wrote:
Yeah, age does seem to start taking its toll after 27 years.
Tell me about it!  (in 3 months time I will reach the ripe old age of 28 - will that make me older or younger than you?)
But I am fantastic in bed! And there are gorgeous women in all the houses I pass. And it would be wrong to leave them unsatisfied! So spam is the only way... - Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant S wrote:
So you are basically middle aged now eh Meg?
 The cruelty!
Nishant S wrote:
A woman's 28 is same as a man's 32
Strange, considering men seem to die off first...
But I am fantastic in bed! And there are gorgeous women in all the houses I pass. And it would be wrong to leave them unsatisfied! So spam is the only way... - Paul Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megan Forbes wrote:
Strange, considering men seem to die off first...
The women wear us out... 
-------------------------- Shog9 --------------------------
------- Happiness is something you decide on ahead of time -------
|
|
|
|
|
Extremely sorry to bug you like this Chris, but I still get the grey head if I forget to change the "space" between Rohit and Sinha in my name to, well, a space by hitting the keyboard space bar. Either that, or change it to an to get the proper user icon. If I leave it as it is, I get a grey head. If I change it to or put a space there again by hitting the spacebar and removing the old one, I get a normal user icon.
Sorry for all the trouble I am causing you. 
Regards,
Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Taking into view the recent spate over the article about processors, I have the following suggestion:
Let's have a point system to decide who can and who can't post articles. In order to be able to post articles, you need to have at least a minimum number of points.
1. Each post in a forum gives you one point.
2. Each post in a message board at the end of an article gives you two points (because it shows that you are reading the articles, and hence are more likely to understand what a good article is).
3. Each article that you publish and which gets edited gives you 200 points
4. After the article is voted on by at least 5 members and is rated more than 4, you get 300 points.
5. If the editors of the articles feel like it, they can award extra points to the authors so that they can now use the submission wizard directly. These points should only be awarded if the editors feel confident that the author can be trusted to let him/her submit his/her own articles.
6. Each article of yours that gets pulled back gives you -1000 points as penalty
7. Each month that you spend with CP gives you 10 points
I think 500 points will be a good threshold to decide who can post articles directly and who can't. If you haven't crossed the threshold yet, you can email the article to submit@... as usual and it will be taken care of.
I think this will be a better scheme than letting only gold or platinum members submit articles directly, as has been proposed earlier. This will be a good compromise because it will let everyone post articles, and at the same time, you will have to prove that you have been with CP for some time and you care for it before you can start posting articles on your own.
I would also like to propose some changes in the membership status system. Currently there are only four levels, and I feel there should be more. A diamond status perhaps, for those who have posted an exceptionally high number of articles? And it might be a good idea to integrate the rating that your messages or articles recieve into the membership status too. Right now you can increase your status just by posting articles. This encourages a lot of people to just put together a few words, a few lines of code and submit an "article". I feel that CP has got enough quality articles that now you need not just to post articles, but post good articles. But please don't penalise anyone for low ratings. This will discourage people from posting, especially newcomers, because they aren't sure how it will be recieved by others. But we can award those whose articles and posts are rated high by people, to encourage good postings and articles.
Regards,
Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Why have 7 people voted between 2 and 3 for this? I think these are quite good suggestions - not set in concrete that we should (implement them || get them implemented), but these people haven't even given good reasons for voting badly for these suggestions. (OK I know this isn't the SoapBox)
Anyway - maybe we should like post comments with our ratings 
Paul
HRESULT Vibrate(DWORD cvn, const VIBRATENOTE * rgvn, BOOL fRepeat, DWORD dwTimeout);
"hurray! the vibrator's working! everything's great  " - benjymous on SDK's
modified 18-Jul-18 11:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul van der Walt wrote:
not set in concrete that we should (implement them || get them implemented), but these people haven't even given good reasons for voting badly for these suggestions
Yes, exactly. This is what I feel bad about it too. If someone didn't like it they could have atleast told me which part they didn't like so much that they thought it best to vote a 1. People have not given any reason, let alone good ones. I mean it's not like I was trolling, or the message proved I am an idiot (now wait a minute... )...
Paul van der Walt wrote:
Anyway - maybe we should like post comments with our ratings
Yeah, maybe. But let's not get too involved with the ratings, just shrug and move on. 
Regards,
Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Chris,
Just seen this on MSDN - see this page[^]. Their rating system looks really cool cause you can see a graph of how many people gave it each rating. This means that, on that particular page, you can see that clearly some jokers have given it a 1, and just ignore that and see the higher ratings are more important; thought it might be kidna cool for the article rating system to have a similar graph available, if that's possible?
Also, a quickie - I was wondering if it might make it easier for users if, when you clicked on link or link[^] on the message editor toolbar, it would select the text that will be visible so you can overtype it and name the link how you want?
Just a couple of deas that I'm sorry to bog you down with but that may be pretty cool .
--
Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen it - but does it actually provide you with valuable information and how would this work with our current weighted voting? A vote of '5' by a new member doesn't count as much as a vote of 3 by a platinum member so the graph would be a little disingenius.
Andrew Peace wrote:
Also, a quickie - I was wondering if it might make it easier for users if, when you clicked on link or link[^] on the message editor toolbar, it would select the text that will be visible so you can overtype it and name the link how you want?
I've gotta redo the whole message composition window.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
I've seen it - but does it actually provide you with valuable information
Do we really need valuable information or percieved valuable information.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign'
Rob Manderson wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
hmmmmm. Good point.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
A way to incite CPians to post articles
could be to use the human desire for differentiation:
There could be a specific icon associated to the article writers, as there's one for the supporters. This icon would be awarded when at least one article is edited.
A variation of this concept is to use the human desire for competition, by awarding different colors to the "writer icon", according to the number of edited articles (bronze, silver, gold, platinum, as usual)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons
Cowboy Bebop
|
|
|
|
|
That's a wonderful idea Karl! Now let me start writing an article I've been meaning to write but been putting off.
And may I also suggest introducing a "Diamond" category, for those who have written an exceptionally high number of articles, like Chris and Nish? I mean you can become a platinum after 25 articles. But 90+ articles and still platinum?
Regards,
Rohit Sinha
Character is like a tree, and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
- Abraham Lincoln
The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going.
- Anonymous
|
|
|
|
|
What is wrong with just the desire to post articles because you've something to share. I'd hope that most of the people who contribute to CP aren't so shallow as to post just to get a different icon.
Michael
Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
All the world's waiting for you,
and the power you possess.
In your satin tights,
Fighting for your rights
And the old Red, White and Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
I'd hope that most of the people who contribute to CP aren't so shallow as to post just to get a different icon.
*cough*
Maybe I'm that shallow.
On another note though Michael, with my employers hat on.
If at an interview an applicant noted that they had posted articles on a site such as CP, I would be very interested as to there quality and quantity.
It would shadow my judgements heavily in making a decision.
Regardz
Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign'
Rob Manderson wrote:
|
|
|
|
|
CP would have succeeded where communism failed 
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons
Cowboy Bebop
|
|
|
|
|
Nice.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I just don't want to put in perspective 250,000 people posting a crappy article just to get their icon.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I said "This icon would be awarded when at least one article is edited"
The edition process guarantees a certain level of quality, doesn't it ?
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons
Cowboy Bebop
|
|
|
|
|
A certain level - but that level isn't A grade. That level is "it's readable, it makes sense, it doesn't contain unacceptable content and it's in a form where the community can now discuss the merits of the article, not the merits of the capitalisation used".
cheers,
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
