My vote of 1
-
Aren't you sick and tired of "my vote of 1" kind of posts that plague almost any new article here at CP? Well, I am. Now I do expect the very same "smart" post in reply to mine... :)
------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
I'm sick and tired of plague of articles that deserves "my vote of 1" kind of posts that plague them! :rolleyes:
-
Aren't you sick and tired of "my vote of 1" kind of posts that plague almost any new article here at CP? Well, I am. Now I do expect the very same "smart" post in reply to mine... :)
------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
It's been asked for very very often, to force the article univoters to write down why they voted so low. As has been observed before, it's like trying to teach your dog to ask nicely, "May I bite this cyclist, please?"
-
Aren't you sick and tired of "my vote of 1" kind of posts that plague almost any new article here at CP? Well, I am. Now I do expect the very same "smart" post in reply to mine... :)
------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
You almost get the feeling that CP is rotting from the inside out just like Microsoft :(( One man's golden nugget is another man's poop stain on the information highway.
Todd Smith
-
Well, if people wrote decent articles, it wouldn't happen. This was a response to people complaining that they got 1's with no comment to justify them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, if people wrote decent articles, it wouldn't happen. This was a response to people complaining that they got 1's with no comment to justify them.
That was people witting good articles getting 1's with no comment such as Mr. Simmons articles. They used a hammer to drive in a screw.
Todd Smith
-
You almost get the feeling that CP is rotting from the inside out just like Microsoft :(( One man's golden nugget is another man's poop stain on the information highway.
Todd Smith
Why? Because instead of having dozens of poor articles go through unannounced we now have article moderation which highlights the bad articles to the top (most vocal) members so they can discuss them as if they are a new thing? Because we now force members to make comments on votes instead of simply allowing 1-voters to anonymously slap down an author who worked hard? Take a look a good articles. Ask authors who wrote those articles how they feel about no longer seeing 20-30 4 and 5 votes and 1 "1" vote. So if the system isn't optimal how do we make it better? - We're not removing voting, so how do we keep it in check? Do we need to do anything more? - If an article is truly bad and deserves a "1", and those votes/messages are unsightly, then what? How about this: If an article gets N bad votes then we turn it into a Wiki article. Anyone can edit it and anyone who does will get credit for the votes accumulating on the article. Or this: We force members to comment on votes, but we allow the article author to remove the messages associated with the votes. Authors that care can clean their article. Those that don't will have the article taken over by the community who can remove those messages if they want.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Well, most of the times I go see the comment it is just a mere repetition of the subject text, or maybe three words with inconsistent grammar. Now I don't want to look smarter than anybody, but please stop this. It may happen there is a good reason to vote 1, and in that case I can probably see it for myself. But to me it actually seems like there are people who just like to vote 1 and leave these incomprehensible comments, as if they had not better things to do all day long. By the way, I wasn't really proposing any solution to this, because I don't know any. I was just ranting! ;)
------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
Paolo Messina wrote:
and in that case I can probably see it for myself
You may be able to see the issue that causes the 1 vote but you are not the reason for the vote, the article writer is. And they obviously need the comments on the crap they are trying to publish. A univote with no comment deserves all the ridicule that can be heaped on the voter and I think it is excellent that these fools are identified. As for the rest there are mostly constructive criticism, except for the odd sarcastic remark.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Why? Because instead of having dozens of poor articles go through unannounced we now have article moderation which highlights the bad articles to the top (most vocal) members so they can discuss them as if they are a new thing? Because we now force members to make comments on votes instead of simply allowing 1-voters to anonymously slap down an author who worked hard? Take a look a good articles. Ask authors who wrote those articles how they feel about no longer seeing 20-30 4 and 5 votes and 1 "1" vote. So if the system isn't optimal how do we make it better? - We're not removing voting, so how do we keep it in check? Do we need to do anything more? - If an article is truly bad and deserves a "1", and those votes/messages are unsightly, then what? How about this: If an article gets N bad votes then we turn it into a Wiki article. Anyone can edit it and anyone who does will get credit for the votes accumulating on the article. Or this: We force members to comment on votes, but we allow the article author to remove the messages associated with the votes. Authors that care can clean their article. Those that don't will have the article taken over by the community who can remove those messages if they want.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I wasn't referring to the 1-vote which I'm fine with either way. I was referring to the flood of poorly written articles being submitted which get 1-votes and constructive criticism yet no change in content (after a while you kinda ask what's the point), plagiaries with no repercussion (ban the account imho), and sub-standard articles by plagiarizing authors that get approved somehow. You have an insiders view so tell us who approved this and why: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/All_About_Delegates.aspx[^]
Todd Smith
-
I wasn't referring to the 1-vote which I'm fine with either way. I was referring to the flood of poorly written articles being submitted which get 1-votes and constructive criticism yet no change in content (after a while you kinda ask what's the point), plagiaries with no repercussion (ban the account imho), and sub-standard articles by plagiarizing authors that get approved somehow. You have an insiders view so tell us who approved this and why: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/All_About_Delegates.aspx[^]
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
I was referring to the flood of poorly written articles being submitted which get 1-votes and constructive criticism yet no change in content
What do you think about my idea of handing these over to the community? Anything with X 1 votes and a score of under Y gets opened up - immediately. Anyone can edit and fix (and have their name associated with the fixes). We have rating filters in place in the 'Latest' articles, the newsletter, and the search page, but I guess it's the stream that appears on the homepage and the moderator list that is the problem? Oh, and I do need to make public the name of the person who approved an article. That's important. [Edit: re: plagiarism. I've been insanely busy the last couple of weeks but I'll talk to Sean and the other editors to put in place a 1 strike and you're out policy]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Todd Smith wrote:
I was referring to the flood of poorly written articles being submitted which get 1-votes and constructive criticism yet no change in content
What do you think about my idea of handing these over to the community? Anything with X 1 votes and a score of under Y gets opened up - immediately. Anyone can edit and fix (and have their name associated with the fixes). We have rating filters in place in the 'Latest' articles, the newsletter, and the search page, but I guess it's the stream that appears on the homepage and the moderator list that is the problem? Oh, and I do need to make public the name of the person who approved an article. That's important. [Edit: re: plagiarism. I've been insanely busy the last couple of weeks but I'll talk to Sean and the other editors to put in place a 1 strike and you're out policy]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
What do you think about my idea of handing these over to the community? Anything with X 1 votes and a score of under Y gets opened up - immediately. Anyone can edit and fix (and have their name associated with the fixes).
So make some of CP more wiki like? I think that would be a possible solution if it worked like wikipedia or stackoverflow and kept a history and allowed edits, diffs and rollbacks. Some articles are beyond repair and should never be approved. I assume article reporting is there to remedy that sometimes but it's hard to know unless there some kind of feedback.
Chris Maunder wrote:
We have rating filters in place in the 'Latest' articles, the newsletter, and the search page, but I guess it's the stream that appears on the homepage and the moderator list that is the problem?
The moderator list (ARTICLES NEEDING APPROVAL?) isn't a problem because I assume the poor articles will never get approved and fall off into purgatory. LAST 10 UPDATES is where I sometimes see articles that I would consider unfit for approval. The last 10 updates only includes approved articles correct?
Chris Maunder wrote:
Oh, and I do need to make public the name of the person who approved an article. That's important.
Removing the transparency on voting would be a big step in the right direction. But if the poor articles are allowed to stick around then what?
Chris Maunder wrote:
[Edit: re: plagiarism. I've been insanely busy the last couple of weeks but I'll talk to Sean and the other editors to put in place a 1 strike and you're out policy]
On the topic of search, I was trying to find an article I had read earlier. I remembered it contained "validation" and "cutting" but couldn't remember much else. I finally found it the other day and wondered why search didn't turn it up. Is substring searching difficult to implement? Is the description field being searched? http://www.codeproject.com/KB/library/conditions.aspx[^]
Todd Smith
-
Aren't you sick and tired of "my vote of 1" kind of posts that plague almost any new article here at CP? Well, I am. Now I do expect the very same "smart" post in reply to mine... :)
------ Why spend 2 minutes doing it by hand when you can spend all night plus most of the following day writing a system to do it for you? - (Chris Maunder)
Unfortunately I think I can take at least a small part of the blame for this. One suggestion was that all early voters and all those who vote strongly against the voting pattern be required to include a comment (not optional). It's childish to say "you suck", however saying "you suck, because ..." at least gives people the chance to improve their article or argue their case. From some of the other comments I obviously wasn't the only one who felt this way. One of my other suggestions was to firmly attach the vote to the comment (if both were supplied). The idea being that if the comment was removed (because it was specious) then the vote could be too. I like one of the other suggestions that authors who fix their article in response to a one vote get the chance to get that vote removed. I'd support that as a means of improving the quality of articles in CP.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
-
Unfortunately I think I can take at least a small part of the blame for this. One suggestion was that all early voters and all those who vote strongly against the voting pattern be required to include a comment (not optional). It's childish to say "you suck", however saying "you suck, because ..." at least gives people the chance to improve their article or argue their case. From some of the other comments I obviously wasn't the only one who felt this way. One of my other suggestions was to firmly attach the vote to the comment (if both were supplied). The idea being that if the comment was removed (because it was specious) then the vote could be too. I like one of the other suggestions that authors who fix their article in response to a one vote get the chance to get that vote removed. I'd support that as a means of improving the quality of articles in CP.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
What happens if they post a sub-standard article, get a few 1-votes with suggestions but don't get around to editing their article for a few days? What happens when they finally do edit their article? Does it show back up in the needing approval list?
Todd Smith
-
What happens if they post a sub-standard article, get a few 1-votes with suggestions but don't get around to editing their article for a few days? What happens when they finally do edit their article? Does it show back up in the needing approval list?
Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote:
What happens if they post a sub-standard article, get a few 1-votes with suggestions but don't get around to editing their article for a few days?
That's why I liked the other suggestion that once they've dealt with the issues the associated 1-votes can get removed.
I just love Koalas - they go great with Bacon.
-
Todd Smith wrote:
I was referring to the flood of poorly written articles being submitted which get 1-votes and constructive criticism yet no change in content
What do you think about my idea of handing these over to the community? Anything with X 1 votes and a score of under Y gets opened up - immediately. Anyone can edit and fix (and have their name associated with the fixes). We have rating filters in place in the 'Latest' articles, the newsletter, and the search page, but I guess it's the stream that appears on the homepage and the moderator list that is the problem? Oh, and I do need to make public the name of the person who approved an article. That's important. [Edit: re: plagiarism. I've been insanely busy the last couple of weeks but I'll talk to Sean and the other editors to put in place a 1 strike and you're out policy]
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I like that we can vote when writing a meaningful message with a meaningful subject. I wonder if the other mechanism can be removed. I don't like that such messages get removed if/when an article gets approved. I don't like that approval requires only one person, regardless of how many times the article has been reported. I also don't think that unedited articles should be released to the public. My understanding of the approval process was as a kind of triage for the humans who edit the articles. Having the gold (and above) members give a quick "this is a good article, edit it and make it public ASAP" or "this article is crap, don't bother with it".