Has anyone else noticed the Tactical Voting?
-
I see your point, the answer is correct & concise. But I think somoeone has taken exception to something else you probably said. They just don't have the balls to square up to you!!! Instead they are stabbing you in the back from the shadows... (You're Julius Caesar!) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: It could have been DD, but figured you wouldn't lose any sleep over it... :) (So didn't bother checking) - Sorry!
-
I see your point, the answer is correct & concise. But I think somoeone has taken exception to something else you probably said. They just don't have the balls to square up to you!!! Instead they are stabbing you in the back from the shadows... (You're Julius Caesar!) :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: It could have been DD, but figured you wouldn't lose any sleep over it... :) (So didn't bother checking) - Sorry!
Alan Beasley wrote:
But I think somoeone has taken exception to something else you probably said. They just don't have the balls to square up to you!!!
That's my suspicion as well. Which is pretty fucked up - if they want to be weenie univoters here or the lounge that's fine, but by pulling stuff like that in the programming forums, they're damaging the credibility of the whole site. The programming forums should be about programming, not petty grudges carried over from here or the Lounge.
Alan Beasley wrote:
It could have been DD, but figured you wouldn't lose any sleep over it... (So didn't bother checking) - Sorry!
No problem here. I just thought I better clarify it before DD accused me of plagiarism. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Alan Beasley wrote:
But I think somoeone has taken exception to something else you probably said. They just don't have the balls to square up to you!!!
That's my suspicion as well. Which is pretty fucked up - if they want to be weenie univoters here or the lounge that's fine, but by pulling stuff like that in the programming forums, they're damaging the credibility of the whole site. The programming forums should be about programming, not petty grudges carried over from here or the Lounge.
Alan Beasley wrote:
It could have been DD, but figured you wouldn't lose any sleep over it... (So didn't bother checking) - Sorry!
No problem here. I just thought I better clarify it before DD accused me of plagiarism. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Well, if there ego is that fragile - They can French Connection OFF!
LunaticFringe wrote:
they're damaging the credibility of the whole site
I agree, your answer is right, so anyone else (an innocent party) that comes across that Q&A, they may be misguided by the Pritt Stick that 1 voted you!
-
Alan Beasley wrote:
But I think somoeone has taken exception to something else you probably said. They just don't have the balls to square up to you!!!
That's my suspicion as well. Which is pretty fucked up - if they want to be weenie univoters here or the lounge that's fine, but by pulling stuff like that in the programming forums, they're damaging the credibility of the whole site. The programming forums should be about programming, not petty grudges carried over from here or the Lounge.
Alan Beasley wrote:
It could have been DD, but figured you wouldn't lose any sleep over it... (So didn't bother checking) - Sorry!
No problem here. I just thought I better clarify it before DD accused me of plagiarism. :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
This has been noticed by many people. A suggestion[^], that's gaining quite a bit of credibility is to scrap the voting on articles together. All that will be left is the option to state that the article is useful. Anything that is not useful will either be left as is or, if it's truly shocking, it can be reported.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
This has been noticed by many people. A suggestion[^], that's gaining quite a bit of credibility is to scrap the voting on articles together. All that will be left is the option to state that the article is useful. Anything that is not useful will either be left as is or, if it's truly shocking, it can be reported.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
I searched & did find that post, but didn't see that anything had been done about it. And it would not solve the issue, as a competing author would simply 0 vote you. We really need people to vote, as this brings the cream to the surface. But fear that many similar suggestions would deter people from voting. What I suggest, would be a system used in some sporting disciplines. Where the top & bottom votes are discounted, and the score determined from the remaining votes... Not sure how this would work with people generating fictitious accounts. As obviously many people can share a work IP address, so hard to detect. And recording additional data to identify a single user is a privacy issue. P.S. Have you burnt your jock strap yet? :-D
-
This has been noticed by many people. A suggestion[^], that's gaining quite a bit of credibility is to scrap the voting on articles together. All that will be left is the option to state that the article is useful. Anything that is not useful will either be left as is or, if it's truly shocking, it can be reported.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'm not an article author myself (everything I've considered I eventually rejected because it was either too complex a subject and would take forever to write, or was the opposite - too simple to really qualify as an article), but I imagine it'd be pretty infuriating to see your work anonymously trashed for no good reason. I mean just the 1 question I cited irritated me, and it's not like I spent a week writing it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
I searched & did find that post, but didn't see that anything had been done about it. And it would not solve the issue, as a competing author would simply 0 vote you. We really need people to vote, as this brings the cream to the surface. But fear that many similar suggestions would deter people from voting. What I suggest, would be a system used in some sporting disciplines. Where the top & bottom votes are discounted, and the score determined from the remaining votes... Not sure how this would work with people generating fictitious accounts. As obviously many people can share a work IP address, so hard to detect. And recording additional data to identify a single user is a privacy issue. P.S. Have you burnt your jock strap yet? :-D
Alan Beasley wrote:
What I suggest, would be a system used in some sporting disciplines. Where the top & bottom votes are discounted, and the score determined from the remaining votes...
I think something similar to this has been discussed, too. Seems to ring a bell.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
I searched & did find that post, but didn't see that anything had been done about it. And it would not solve the issue, as a competing author would simply 0 vote you. We really need people to vote, as this brings the cream to the surface. But fear that many similar suggestions would deter people from voting. What I suggest, would be a system used in some sporting disciplines. Where the top & bottom votes are discounted, and the score determined from the remaining votes... Not sure how this would work with people generating fictitious accounts. As obviously many people can share a work IP address, so hard to detect. And recording additional data to identify a single user is a privacy issue. P.S. Have you burnt your jock strap yet? :-D
There's no 0 vote. That's the point. You either vote for it as useful, or you don't vote for it. If the article is poor, it can be reported. This has no effect on the votes given. As far as nothing having been done about it, the timetable for change is up to Chris. I do know, from conversations with him, that he's seriously sick of the drive bys and views this as an opportunity to sort it out.
Alan Beasley wrote:
P.S. Have you burnt your jock strap yet?
I'm a Geordie. I burnt it while wearing it.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I'm not an article author myself (everything I've considered I eventually rejected because it was either too complex a subject and would take forever to write, or was the opposite - too simple to really qualify as an article), but I imagine it'd be pretty infuriating to see your work anonymously trashed for no good reason. I mean just the 1 question I cited irritated me, and it's not like I spent a week writing it.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
I imagine it'd be pretty infuriating to see your work anonymously trashed for no good reason.
It is, as I've posted 3 "Beginners" articles for Expression Blend, which are Step by Step tutorials, & took a long time to put together. Yes I did simplify certain bits, like calling a "Control" a "UserControl", but someone learning did not need to know that at that time. (I set them straight in the 3rd tutorial). But no one commented to say I was incorrect, which actually did surprise me. But after it happening the 3rd time, for what I see as "no good reason" I did get the hump a bit... The pattern seems to occur, as you work your way up the "Latest Best Picks", then all of a sudden you get a low vote & bang, you're off the list. Which is a kick in the nuts, as well as depriving others, of what is good, or not good. Something should be done, as I'm sure CodeProject can see who cast the vote. If they are also an author, who has just released an article, they should get a slap in my opinion. I've no interest in putting others down for their hard work, & would like to think the same should apply to me.
modified on Monday, April 5, 2010 4:02 PM
-
There's no 0 vote. That's the point. You either vote for it as useful, or you don't vote for it. If the article is poor, it can be reported. This has no effect on the votes given. As far as nothing having been done about it, the timetable for change is up to Chris. I do know, from conversations with him, that he's seriously sick of the drive bys and views this as an opportunity to sort it out.
Alan Beasley wrote:
P.S. Have you burnt your jock strap yet?
I'm a Geordie. I burnt it while wearing it.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
There's no 0 vote
Sorry, I misunderstood what was said, & yes that does sound like a plan. Bring it on!!! As a Graphic Designer, I'd like to see the voting area to be a little more prominent as well. As it is easy to miss...
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm a Geordie. I burnt it while wearing it.
Ha Ha - A man with style! :laugh:
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
There's no 0 vote
Sorry, I misunderstood what was said, & yes that does sound like a plan. Bring it on!!! As a Graphic Designer, I'd like to see the voting area to be a little more prominent as well. As it is easy to miss...
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm a Geordie. I burnt it while wearing it.
Ha Ha - A man with style! :laugh:
I assumed you had just used binary notation... 1 = useful, 0 = not useful.
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Hi All, Have you noticed that a lot of new & good articles, get a few good reviews, & then out of nowhere, a 3 Star gets thrown into the mix... I spotted this with my own articles, & upon further investigation, saw this pattern with other peoples articles. I'm not saying that a 5 Star should be awarded every time, and if you believe the article could be better, a 3 or 4 Star is probably just. (Personally, I'd say a 1 or 2 Star, should be reserved for rubbish or incorrect articles). But if you believe an article could be better, tell the bloody author how they could improve it!!! Don't be a spineless little retard who votes & runs. (Words of the LunaticFringe I believe...) But the main point (I believe) are the devious little buggers, who are voting other people articles down, just to move their own up the "Latest Best Picks" list. Should we all start doing this? And where would that leave us??? (It really is very tempting, but I won't stoop to that level) Rant Over!!!! ;P Thanks for the Soapbox! ha ha Alan
Has happened to me before. Irritating but you have to forget it. If you get ten 5s and one 3 then you know you've written a decent article so don't worry about it. 3 is the lowest vote that does not require any commentary. My article was doing okay then dropped off the list. Big deal: maybe, just maybe, the articles that moved up deserved to and maybe, just maybe I did deserve the 3 though a comment would have been helpful.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
Has happened to me before. Irritating but you have to forget it. If you get ten 5s and one 3 then you know you've written a decent article so don't worry about it. 3 is the lowest vote that does not require any commentary. My article was doing okay then dropped off the list. Big deal: maybe, just maybe, the articles that moved up deserved to and maybe, just maybe I did deserve the 3 though a comment would have been helpful.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
I have no objection to a 3 rating, as no one deserves a perfect score. But if for example, you only have a couple of votes because the article has only just been released, a 3 score hits very hard. I'd just love to know if the score was given by another author, who has also just released an article. I didn't know that a score of 1 or 2 required a comment though, & maybe this could be extended... So that if you have released an article in the last 2 weeks, it is mandatory for you to leave a comment, whatever the score you award. (But this would still not be fool proof, but might help!) Cheers digital man
-
I have no objection to a 3 rating, as no one deserves a perfect score. But if for example, you only have a couple of votes because the article has only just been released, a 3 score hits very hard. I'd just love to know if the score was given by another author, who has also just released an article. I didn't know that a score of 1 or 2 required a comment though, & maybe this could be extended... So that if you have released an article in the last 2 weeks, it is mandatory for you to leave a comment, whatever the score you award. (But this would still not be fool proof, but might help!) Cheers digital man
Alan Beasley wrote:
I didn't know that a score of 1 or 2 required a comment though, & maybe this could be extended...
i guess extending mandatory comment upto star 3 would help as star 4 or 5 is a decent rating, enabling comment for all stars including 4 and 5 is just like viewing list of all people voted for our article, only author can see it.better go for that instead.
Arun Jacob http://codepronet.blogspot.com/
-
Alan Beasley wrote:
I didn't know that a score of 1 or 2 required a comment though, & maybe this could be extended...
i guess extending mandatory comment upto star 3 would help as star 4 or 5 is a decent rating, enabling comment for all stars including 4 and 5 is just like viewing list of all people voted for our article, only author can see it.better go for that instead.
Arun Jacob http://codepronet.blogspot.com/
Arun Jacob wrote:
i guess extending mandatory comment upto star 3 would help
It probably would, but suspect CodeProject have considered & rejected this. But I do now understand why the 3 stars have been awarded to a lot of authors... I don't see, that it would be that big a deal, for CodeProject to look at who is doing it. As once a few people get slapped for down voting others to promote themselves, they might think twice! But that just brings us back to fictitious accounts again... (Which I'm guessing is very hard to check) Although a fictitious account would have lower voting power, so would help a bit... Cheers, Alan
-
Arun Jacob wrote:
i guess extending mandatory comment upto star 3 would help
It probably would, but suspect CodeProject have considered & rejected this. But I do now understand why the 3 stars have been awarded to a lot of authors... I don't see, that it would be that big a deal, for CodeProject to look at who is doing it. As once a few people get slapped for down voting others to promote themselves, they might think twice! But that just brings us back to fictitious accounts again... (Which I'm guessing is very hard to check) Although a fictitious account would have lower voting power, so would help a bit... Cheers, Alan
Alan Beasley wrote:
Although a fictitious account would have lower voting power, so would help a bit...
yeah, raising the member level required to vote an article would prevent fake accounts only for this purpose to a greater extend.
Arun Jacob http://codepronet.blogspot.com/
-
Alan Beasley wrote:
Although a fictitious account would have lower voting power, so would help a bit...
yeah, raising the member level required to vote an article would prevent fake accounts only for this purpose to a greater extend.
Arun Jacob http://codepronet.blogspot.com/
Arun Jacob wrote:
yeah, raising the member level required to vote an article would prevent fake accounts only for this purpose to a greater extend.
All member rating should count, but a member with no reputation should have the voting power of a chocolate teapot. (It counts, but does very very little to the average score) Not sure how biased this currently is...
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 8:54 AM