Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor
  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. CodeProject Proposal

CodeProject Proposal

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
wcfxmlhelplearning
56 Posts 18 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • R Reynolds Glisner

    I wonder how many of the people that have voted this post at 1, are Gold members that may have their status affected by these hypothetical changes. :laugh:

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Rob Graham
    wrote on last edited by
    #47

    For someone with 23 posts and no articles, you are quite arrogant to be telling us how to run this community. Come back when you have some credentials. I beleive your proposals would irreparably damage this community. This is not an elitist organization (which is what you really mean when you say "meritocracy"...) consisting of just the best of the best. It is a thriving community of mentors and mentees, A place to get help, share knowlege, and to socialize and share non-work related opinions. You sound like you would be much happier at Experts exchange, or slashdot.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • C Christian Graus

      1 - I tend to agree 2 - that's just too complicated. The point of approval is an EXTRA filter to help CP staff find plainly useless articles, such as when the boilerplate text is not changed and just an image is uploaded. We're not being called upon to vouch for the quality of genuine articles, a CP staff member always decides if soething stays or goes. We do have an issue with how co-authors are assigned, that should be done with approval from the co-author IMO 3 - Sounds like a ton of work for little gain. Few people will think about those categories, they will vote 1/1/1 or 5/5/5 4 - Sounds like a ton of work for the CP team also. I do like the idea of people just being able to be emailed when a specific article is updated tho. I think if you have suggestions, you should post them in the suggestions board.

      Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )

      L Offline
      L Offline
      Lost User
      wrote on last edited by
      #48

      Christian Graus wrote:

      1 - I tend to agree

      ...Graus. 'Nuff said.

      Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • realJSOPR realJSOP

        I honestly don't think that having been a member here for just two months qualifies you to comment on how the site is run.

        Reynolds Glisner wrote:

        1. Levels should be incremented based on forum posts where said posts are ONLY in any of the programming forums. The lounge, soap-box and any other rant oriented forum posts should not be counted. furthermore, of the posts that are counted, they should either not have a rating or have a rating of 3 and above, anything else should not be counted.

        Participation is participation, regardless of where someone posts. I am of the opinion that message posts shouldn't count at all towards advancement to the next level of membership, but I really don't that that's going to change.

        Reynolds Glisner wrote:

        2. Gold members should only be allowed to "approve" articles in categories which they themselves have submitted articles and posses an average article ranking in those categories of 3.75 or above - articles where the author is a co-author will not be counted, the author must have independently written an article in that category no exceptions permitted.

        You should see the crap some people try to post as articles. It doesn't require any special knowledge of the topic to observe that someone merely clicked through the article submission wizard, or to see that they completely hosed up their formatting.

        Reynolds Glisner wrote:

        3. Article grading should be broken down in 3 separate categories which people can optionally vote on, the final vote will be a mixture of said categories these are: (usefulness/applicability, explanation level, uniqueness/novelty)

        Sure, let's make policing the site even tougher than it is now.

        Reynolds Glisner wrote:

        I believe gold membership should be a prized status, and not given to any idiot that has enough time to rant on forums.

        Did you know that there are fewer than 800 gold (and only 27 platinum) members now? If you go through them, there are even some who don't have the requisite five articles, so I think the list needs to be pruned some more. In any case, that sounds to me like a fairly exclusive club when you consider that there's over 5 million users registered. One last thing - I've copyrighted the use of the numbered bullet point template used on CodeProject. Please find another m

        M Offline
        M Offline
        Mustafa Ismail Mustafa
        wrote on last edited by
        #49

        John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

        I'll have to retaliate and sick Boukh on you.

        That's fighting dirty :D

        "Every time Lotus Notes starts up, somewhere a puppy, a kitten, a lamb, and a baby seal are killed. Lotus Notes is a conspiracy by the forces of Satan to drive us over the brink into madness. The CRC-32 for each file in the installation includes the numbers 666." Gary Wheeler "You're an idiot." John Simmons, THE Outlaw programmer "I realised that all of my best anecdotes started with "So there we were, pissed". Pete O'Hanlon

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R Reynolds Glisner

          I have a few very simple proposals that if implemented could ease some of the issues currently seen on codeproject 1. Levels should be incremented based on forum posts where said posts are ONLY in any of the programming forums. The lounge, soap-box and any other rant oriented forum posts should not be counted. furthermore, of the posts that are counted, they should either not have a rating or have a rating of 3 and above, anything else should not be counted. 2. Gold members should only be allowed to "approve" articles in categories which they themselves have submitted articles and posses an average article ranking in those categories of 3.75 or above - articles where the author is a co-author will not be counted, the author must have independently written an article in that category no exceptions permitted. 3. Article grading should be broken down in 3 separate categories which people can optionally vote on, the final vote will be a mixture of said categories these are: (usefulness/applicability, explanation level, uniqueness/novelty) 4. Article upgrades, people should have the option to choose if they would like to be notified (in bulk of course) of specific article upgrades, with said notification they may have the option to attach a note, this note can help users remember the issues they saw with the article previously and allow them to either vote up or down an article, eg: initially give an article a vote of 2 due to bad grammar or formatting, article is updated, note presented to you says you had issues with formatting, you look at the article again, its improved you now give it a 4 - the cycle continues etc... 5. Based on point 1, Gold member status of a user should indicate under what categories they are considered to be Gold members. I believe gold membership should be a prized status, and not given to any idiot that has enough time to rant on forums. I believe applying these simple rules will lift the perceived caliber of codeproject members and their status, it may hurt some long-time/frequent users in the way of demotions to silver or even bronze, but in the long run it will be for the greater good.

          7 Offline
          7 Offline
          73Zeppelin
          wrote on last edited by
          #50

          I agree with your point 1. I completely disagree with your point 2. I think that people can be qualified to judge articles in categories other than those in which they have submitted. For example, I referee for some academic journals and the subject matter that comes across my desk is quite diverse. If I feel particularly uncomfortable with a paper too far out of my field, I return it to the editor for submission to another referee. Restricting the approval process in this way results in "mircocategorization" and becomes nothing but a major headache with submissions floating in limbo and yearning for a suitable reviewer. Point 3 is good as well - but there is a problem with the article voting system. People can vote an article down if they simply personally dislike the author. This has happened, for example, with members on this site. Point 4 is pretty good, but this would be treated in another manner. See my suggestion below regarding the review process overhaul. Point 5 - again, we're getting into "microcategoriztion". Unnecessary. Not needed. Too many categories introduces complexity and "status" becomes meaningless. I also think the article review process needs to be overhauled. Drastically. For example, there should be a preliminary submission followed by a "reject", "publish with corrections", "published with reservations", or "publish as is" categorization. The status can be decided upon by a blind review process and by more than one editor. Furthermore, there should be a cap on the number of submissions per month in order to make the editorial task manageable. Blindly accepting 500+ articles per month encourages sloppy, low quality submissions and makes the editorial process a veritable nightmare. Prestigious academic journals only become prestigious by selective paper acceptance and, I feel, the same should be done here.

          And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • 7 73Zeppelin

            I agree with your point 1. I completely disagree with your point 2. I think that people can be qualified to judge articles in categories other than those in which they have submitted. For example, I referee for some academic journals and the subject matter that comes across my desk is quite diverse. If I feel particularly uncomfortable with a paper too far out of my field, I return it to the editor for submission to another referee. Restricting the approval process in this way results in "mircocategorization" and becomes nothing but a major headache with submissions floating in limbo and yearning for a suitable reviewer. Point 3 is good as well - but there is a problem with the article voting system. People can vote an article down if they simply personally dislike the author. This has happened, for example, with members on this site. Point 4 is pretty good, but this would be treated in another manner. See my suggestion below regarding the review process overhaul. Point 5 - again, we're getting into "microcategoriztion". Unnecessary. Not needed. Too many categories introduces complexity and "status" becomes meaningless. I also think the article review process needs to be overhauled. Drastically. For example, there should be a preliminary submission followed by a "reject", "publish with corrections", "published with reservations", or "publish as is" categorization. The status can be decided upon by a blind review process and by more than one editor. Furthermore, there should be a cap on the number of submissions per month in order to make the editorial task manageable. Blindly accepting 500+ articles per month encourages sloppy, low quality submissions and makes the editorial process a veritable nightmare. Prestigious academic journals only become prestigious by selective paper acceptance and, I feel, the same should be done here.

            And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #51

            73Zeppelin wrote:

            "reject", "publish with corrections", "published with reservations", or "publish as is"

            This would be a step in the right direction, but I am concerned with present CP policy in terms of those "This is an unedited reader contribution". By allowing submissions to be published albeit with those fine words in article's header does a disservice and encourages sloppiness. Irrespective of the colour of medal the writer has, no article should be published unedited thus some degree of prestigiousness can be established.

            7 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • L Lost User

              73Zeppelin wrote:

              "reject", "publish with corrections", "published with reservations", or "publish as is"

              This would be a step in the right direction, but I am concerned with present CP policy in terms of those "This is an unedited reader contribution". By allowing submissions to be published albeit with those fine words in article's header does a disservice and encourages sloppiness. Irrespective of the colour of medal the writer has, no article should be published unedited thus some degree of prestigiousness can be established.

              7 Offline
              7 Offline
              73Zeppelin
              wrote on last edited by
              #52

              Richard A. Abbott wrote:

              This would be a step in the right direction, but I am concerned with present CP policy in terms of those "This is an unedited reader contribution". By allowing submissions to be published albeit with those fine words in article's header does a disservice and encourages sloppiness.

              I am not in favour of the current policy either. I see that the person who originated this thread got jumped on - his post is greyed out. Yet when you look at how many articles earn which colour medal, I think he makes a strong point. For example, I have submitted 1 article and I post alot in the Soapbox. Occasionally I post in the Math/Algorithms section, but lately I haven't been doing that. I feel that my "gold" status is undeserved as I have done comparatively little in terms of contribution to CP. I believe 15-24 (quality) articles should represent gold (or whatever the limit is set at). Certainly this would trim the number of gold and even silver members, but I think this is a good thing. It would single out the real contributers from the people that just frequent the site for discussions.

              Richard A. Abbott wrote:

              Irrespective of the colour of medal the writer has, no article should be published unedited thus some degree of prestigiousness can be established.

              I agree. As a result of some of my academic review experience, I have offered Chris some suggestions as to how to revamp and possibly improve the article submission process. I hope we can bring about some change.

              And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

              L 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • realJSOPR realJSOP

                I honestly don't think that having been a member here for just two months qualifies you to comment on how the site is run.

                Reynolds Glisner wrote:

                1. Levels should be incremented based on forum posts where said posts are ONLY in any of the programming forums. The lounge, soap-box and any other rant oriented forum posts should not be counted. furthermore, of the posts that are counted, they should either not have a rating or have a rating of 3 and above, anything else should not be counted.

                Participation is participation, regardless of where someone posts. I am of the opinion that message posts shouldn't count at all towards advancement to the next level of membership, but I really don't that that's going to change.

                Reynolds Glisner wrote:

                2. Gold members should only be allowed to "approve" articles in categories which they themselves have submitted articles and posses an average article ranking in those categories of 3.75 or above - articles where the author is a co-author will not be counted, the author must have independently written an article in that category no exceptions permitted.

                You should see the crap some people try to post as articles. It doesn't require any special knowledge of the topic to observe that someone merely clicked through the article submission wizard, or to see that they completely hosed up their formatting.

                Reynolds Glisner wrote:

                3. Article grading should be broken down in 3 separate categories which people can optionally vote on, the final vote will be a mixture of said categories these are: (usefulness/applicability, explanation level, uniqueness/novelty)

                Sure, let's make policing the site even tougher than it is now.

                Reynolds Glisner wrote:

                I believe gold membership should be a prized status, and not given to any idiot that has enough time to rant on forums.

                Did you know that there are fewer than 800 gold (and only 27 platinum) members now? If you go through them, there are even some who don't have the requisite five articles, so I think the list needs to be pruned some more. In any case, that sounds to me like a fairly exclusive club when you consider that there's over 5 million users registered. One last thing - I've copyrighted the use of the numbered bullet point template used on CodeProject. Please find another m

                7 Offline
                7 Offline
                73Zeppelin
                wrote on last edited by
                #53

                John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                I honestly don't think that having been a member here for just two months qualifies you to comment on how the site is run.

                I disagree - I think it's actually a bonus to have a new member make comments. For one, he brings a fresh perspective. Chris has already taken one of his suggestions. Most old members are comfortable with the status quo, yet how can CP evolve by maintaining the status quo?

                John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:

                Did you know that there are fewer than 800 gold (and only 27 platinum) members now?

                I think the membership levels need a drastic adjustment. For example, I have contributed but a single article in several years and I feel that doesn't justify "gold" status. It gives people the impression that I participate more than I do. Also, I am pretty sure the 4,000,000+ figure is alot of hit-and-run and some duplicate (and suspicious) accounts. I believe it's inflated. In fact, if Chris were to delete accounts that have been inactive for, say, 6 months, I think you'd see the 4 million number plummet. I feel there's no harm in trimming some dead weight and reducing user levels. Like I said - CP needs to constantly evolve to stay on top and differentiate itself from other similar websites. Afterall, it's not a social networking site - it's a developers website.

                And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • 7 73Zeppelin

                  Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                  This would be a step in the right direction, but I am concerned with present CP policy in terms of those "This is an unedited reader contribution". By allowing submissions to be published albeit with those fine words in article's header does a disservice and encourages sloppiness.

                  I am not in favour of the current policy either. I see that the person who originated this thread got jumped on - his post is greyed out. Yet when you look at how many articles earn which colour medal, I think he makes a strong point. For example, I have submitted 1 article and I post alot in the Soapbox. Occasionally I post in the Math/Algorithms section, but lately I haven't been doing that. I feel that my "gold" status is undeserved as I have done comparatively little in terms of contribution to CP. I believe 15-24 (quality) articles should represent gold (or whatever the limit is set at). Certainly this would trim the number of gold and even silver members, but I think this is a good thing. It would single out the real contributers from the people that just frequent the site for discussions.

                  Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                  Irrespective of the colour of medal the writer has, no article should be published unedited thus some degree of prestigiousness can be established.

                  I agree. As a result of some of my academic review experience, I have offered Chris some suggestions as to how to revamp and possibly improve the article submission process. I hope we can bring about some change.

                  And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #54

                  Yes, I visit a variety of forums and from time to time I do offer some responses. However, soapbox postings should not be counted but in respect of lounge postings, some have merit and should count although I am not sure of what weighting such merited lounge posts should attract. In terms of articles, those who have the urge to publish should be encouraged to continue to do so. Those who don't, and there could be a multitude of reasons not to, should not be subjected to unfairness in whatever raking they should be able to achieve. Thus I propose a system that is weighted that fairly takes into account all of that said here. Alas, no simple solution is apparent.

                  7 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    Yes, I visit a variety of forums and from time to time I do offer some responses. However, soapbox postings should not be counted but in respect of lounge postings, some have merit and should count although I am not sure of what weighting such merited lounge posts should attract. In terms of articles, those who have the urge to publish should be encouraged to continue to do so. Those who don't, and there could be a multitude of reasons not to, should not be subjected to unfairness in whatever raking they should be able to achieve. Thus I propose a system that is weighted that fairly takes into account all of that said here. Alas, no simple solution is apparent.

                    7 Offline
                    7 Offline
                    73Zeppelin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #55

                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                    Thus I propose a system that is weighted that fairly takes into account all of that said here. Alas, no simple solution is apparent.

                    Perhaps there is a relatively simple solution if one were to receive two medal standings - one for postings, one for articles for example. In that way, there isn't the burden of a million categories and one can advance in both posting and article levels since the two are distinct and separate activities.

                    And when the sunlight hits the olive oil, don't hesitate.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • realJSOPR realJSOP

                      Chris Maunder wrote:

                      The value of someone's contribution can be more than just answering a question.

                      Yeah! (This is where Chris uses me as the "perfect example").

                      "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

                      C Offline
                      C Offline
                      Chris Maunder
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #56

                      :rolleyes:

                      cheers, Chris Maunder

                      CodeProject.com : C++ MVP

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes

                      • Login
                      • Don't have an account? Register
                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • World
                      • Users
                      • Groups