Vote for complexity of the article
-
I think that the level (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) of the article should be selected by the reader. Maybe with some more levels (1 to 5?). In this way the vote can be weighted by the complexity of the article. For example an article on a little code tricks can be very well written and of high quality but it is "only" a little code tips. es: Quality: 4.8, Complexity: 2.5 Otherwise a complex article about a big project can be not perfect but about a complex and difficult subject and so it is easier to make mistakes/bugs: es: Quality: 3.8, Complexity: 4.7 In the above scenario I think that both articles must be considered good. In this way the vote will be more distributed and more precise. What do you think? Davide
-
I think that the level (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) of the article should be selected by the reader. Maybe with some more levels (1 to 5?). In this way the vote can be weighted by the complexity of the article. For example an article on a little code tricks can be very well written and of high quality but it is "only" a little code tips. es: Quality: 4.8, Complexity: 2.5 Otherwise a complex article about a big project can be not perfect but about a complex and difficult subject and so it is easier to make mistakes/bugs: es: Quality: 3.8, Complexity: 4.7 In the above scenario I think that both articles must be considered good. In this way the vote will be more distributed and more precise. What do you think? Davide
It's true that the complexity level can be helpful when you're selecting an article to read, and setting it as an author can be a challenge. I usually see myself as a "beginner" in the topic when I start writing a challenging piece of code, and I then aim to make my articles comprehensible to people who are new to the topic too. But on the other hand, two of the articles have been about the Windows API, which I would say is an Advanced topic for programmers who only know .NET. So I've rated everything Intermediate. :) In the scheme you suggest, with complexity being in the eye of the beholder, as it were, there's a risk that a large number of "newbie" readers would result in articles being rated as more complex than they really are. Intermediate articles aimed at an audience familiar with the programming language, but not the topic, for instance, could end up being rated as Advanced just because their relatively simple explanations fly over the heads of some readers. I'm not saying that the rating system is perfect - as both an author and a reader, I've often read a dozen "Wow! Cool code" comments at the bottom of a page, scratching my head and thinking "so why did it only get 3.76?". But at least it's very simple (though perhaps a bit difficult to find, IMHO). :)
-
I think that the level (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) of the article should be selected by the reader. Maybe with some more levels (1 to 5?). In this way the vote can be weighted by the complexity of the article. For example an article on a little code tricks can be very well written and of high quality but it is "only" a little code tips. es: Quality: 4.8, Complexity: 2.5 Otherwise a complex article about a big project can be not perfect but about a complex and difficult subject and so it is easier to make mistakes/bugs: es: Quality: 3.8, Complexity: 4.7 In the above scenario I think that both articles must be considered good. In this way the vote will be more distributed and more precise. What do you think? Davide
Emma's summed up my thoughts but as an aside we were actually contemplating opening up the entire attribution system for voting. An article may be posted as C# but if enough people vote that it should be relevant for VB.NET too then that would get added. Same goes for target audience, level of difficulty and technologies used. Just a thought.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
It's true that the complexity level can be helpful when you're selecting an article to read, and setting it as an author can be a challenge. I usually see myself as a "beginner" in the topic when I start writing a challenging piece of code, and I then aim to make my articles comprehensible to people who are new to the topic too. But on the other hand, two of the articles have been about the Windows API, which I would say is an Advanced topic for programmers who only know .NET. So I've rated everything Intermediate. :) In the scheme you suggest, with complexity being in the eye of the beholder, as it were, there's a risk that a large number of "newbie" readers would result in articles being rated as more complex than they really are. Intermediate articles aimed at an audience familiar with the programming language, but not the topic, for instance, could end up being rated as Advanced just because their relatively simple explanations fly over the heads of some readers. I'm not saying that the rating system is perfect - as both an author and a reader, I've often read a dozen "Wow! Cool code" comments at the bottom of a page, scratching my head and thinking "so why did it only get 3.76?". But at least it's very simple (though perhaps a bit difficult to find, IMHO). :)
You are right and I understand your ideas, but I have a little different concept of complexity. I just try to better explain me with an example. Consider this article: http://www.codeproject.com/library/NeuralNetRecognition.asp and this: http://www.codeproject.com/vista/NetFw3.asp I voted for both articles 5, for me they are both well written and high quality article. But as you can see behind the first article there is a very hard work (probably many months of studying and test I think ...). I think that should be right to have a method to reward an article with so much work. With my "voting style" for example: First article: Quality: 5, Complexity: 5 Second article: Quality: 5, Complexity: 2 or 3 Basically I think of a voting similar to the voting of a diving competition where there is a difficult coefficient. What do you think? Davide
-
You are right and I understand your ideas, but I have a little different concept of complexity. I just try to better explain me with an example. Consider this article: http://www.codeproject.com/library/NeuralNetRecognition.asp and this: http://www.codeproject.com/vista/NetFw3.asp I voted for both articles 5, for me they are both well written and high quality article. But as you can see behind the first article there is a very hard work (probably many months of studying and test I think ...). I think that should be right to have a method to reward an article with so much work. With my "voting style" for example: First article: Quality: 5, Complexity: 5 Second article: Quality: 5, Complexity: 2 or 3 Basically I think of a voting similar to the voting of a diving competition where there is a difficult coefficient. What do you think? Davide
Yes, I do like the idea of rewarding someone based on the level of difficulty.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Emma's summed up my thoughts but as an aside we were actually contemplating opening up the entire attribution system for voting. An article may be posted as C# but if enough people vote that it should be relevant for VB.NET too then that would get added. Same goes for target audience, level of difficulty and technologies used. Just a thought.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Opening up the entire attribution system for voting seems to be a good idea but I mean a little different concept. Try to see my response to Emma. Thanks! Davide
-
Yes, I do like the idea of rewarding someone based on the level of difficulty.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
So you're saying little snippets that aren't difficult in concept but that are not well known/widely used are of lesser importance? Rewarding people for difficulty level seems a bit backwards to me. In fact, the simple forehead-slapper stuff that shows you an EASIER way to do something is infinitely better, IMHO.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
So you're saying little snippets that aren't difficult in concept but that are not well known/widely used are of lesser importance? Rewarding people for difficulty level seems a bit backwards to me. In fact, the simple forehead-slapper stuff that shows you an EASIER way to do something is infinitely better, IMHO.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I think that it is right that a complex article is more "important" then a "short" article. A complex article for me can also be a short algorithm that solve a problem in a new/innovative way. I think that it is only a definition problem. The complexity of an article for me can be: -difficult argument -very innovative solution -long work/study behind -about a new technology -very useful for the community (solve a common problem in an smart way...) Consider also that I think of a complexity value from 1 to 5, so there is some flexibility. Maybe the word complexity it is not the right definition ... I think that with a voting like this the global quality of the articles should improve, because more important articles are more visible. For me an article with quality 5 and complexity 5 should be an extraordinary article, very innovative and well written. Suppose that you write 2 articles (just to better understand my idea): 1-"How to use the .NET TextBox control" 2-"How to write an image recognition system" If both article are well written and without bugs currently I must simply vote for both article 5, there isn't a way to reward more the second article. There isn't any differences from the 2 articles using the current voting system. What do you think? Davide
-
Emma's summed up my thoughts but as an aside we were actually contemplating opening up the entire attribution system for voting. An article may be posted as C# but if enough people vote that it should be relevant for VB.NET too then that would get added. Same goes for target audience, level of difficulty and technologies used. Just a thought.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
How many Attributes are we talking? I would assume there is some "imaginary threshold" of too much work. Where asking the community to perform more than this threshold would be catastrphic as they would not vote at all. Side note: A good form of Attribute display is the radar chart. Like can be seen in the lower left of the this image. http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2003/ps2/ddrmax2/0002.jpg[^] Or Here http://www.dundas.com/Gallery/Chart/NET/Images/radar/radar6.jpg[^]
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature. - Dave Barry
-
I think that the level (Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced) of the article should be selected by the reader. Maybe with some more levels (1 to 5?). In this way the vote can be weighted by the complexity of the article. For example an article on a little code tricks can be very well written and of high quality but it is "only" a little code tips. es: Quality: 4.8, Complexity: 2.5 Otherwise a complex article about a big project can be not perfect but about a complex and difficult subject and so it is easier to make mistakes/bugs: es: Quality: 3.8, Complexity: 4.7 In the above scenario I think that both articles must be considered good. In this way the vote will be more distributed and more precise. What do you think? Davide
Actually the articles that are well written *AND* complex tend to get a lot *more* votes than simpler articles. At the end of the day everyone defines "good", "excellent", "complex" etc. slightly differently, so everyone is voting based on their own standard. Even if we get to rate an article on different points, there still needs to be a single averaged score anyway. To me it would be better to rate an article out of 10 - that way you can rate a good but simple article just a bit less than an good and more complex article.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
-
Actually the articles that are well written *AND* complex tend to get a lot *more* votes than simpler articles. At the end of the day everyone defines "good", "excellent", "complex" etc. slightly differently, so everyone is voting based on their own standard. Even if we get to rate an article on different points, there still needs to be a single averaged score anyway. To me it would be better to rate an article out of 10 - that way you can rate a good but simple article just a bit less than an good and more complex article.
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
CP article: SmartPager - a Flickr-style pager control with go-to-page popup layer.
I think that using 10 values can be a solution (and more easy). Anyway consider that there are also some articles with many high votes that are quite easy. I usually for example vote 5 if the article is well written and about an argument that I known well because I can exactly understand if the content is good. But there are also many other articles very well written and with an advanced argument that I can simply vote again 5. In my opinion these 2 votes are completely different but I must vote both article with the same values. Davide
