Misuse of the Quick Answers Forum
-
I am strongly against that approach. As other have suggested there are no stupid questions. I generally agree. But if a young'un is having problems, one of the only call centers that the OP can use is CP. I would think that following your suggestion would pull down the value of this site.
Gus Gustafson
A young'un having problems ain't the same as a young'un that's too damn lazy to figure out something like a homework assignment on his own, or at the very least, google for an answer. Approach it any way you see fit, but complaining about it in the lounge is pointless. Either answer the question, or don't.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
No one should suffer any backlash as the result of the action of one single user. I'm just a little bit scared of your idea, and here's why: Search the internet for these two terms: "LinkedIn, SWAM" I speak from personal experience in this matter; and I don't consider myself to be a troll, spammer, or other negative influence in any online site in which I participate. (For more details, just ask.) Now yes, you are correct, it may be time to consider expansion of negative reporting. Here is my (considered, based on experience) opinion: The negative report should factor in... -- The number of people who view it as bad -- The ranking of those people -- The good-to-bad ratio of opinions about that specific post -- The amount of time the new user has been here -- The amount of time the complainers have been here -- The number of times the new user has screwed up -- The complaint-to-praise ratio of the user in question -- The complains-to-praises ratio of the persons who are complaining What I'm getting at is this: your immediate complaint is totally valid. After reading your suggestion, I can quickly see this degenerating into the SWAM disaster which LinkedIn thought would fix their spam problem, but which has in turn become the plague of LinkedIn groups. Believe me, LinkedIn's SWAM policy doesn't invite abuse by people of low integrity, it absolutely guarantees it What you are suggesting has many parallels to the disaster that LinkedIn has brought upon thousands of victims needlessly with their SWAM procedure. Here's what your plan (and theirs) fails to factor into the system: malicious actions by unethical persons. It is so easy for an unethical person to attack someone with a system like this that it inevitably happens. I can give you links to demonstrate this if needed. Perhaps something like StackExchange does in their groups would be a good idea. One screw up doesn't kill you, but it does cost you, and you get to know exactly why it occurred, when, where, the people who were involved in the censure, and it costs you in your reputation. I have had this personally happen to me, and I'm still surviving there, contributing positively to others' problems, and getting a good deal for myself in return. Whatever, whatever, please do NOT entertain the idea of letting a person be victimized by one (or a small number of) person(s) who just [doesn't] [don't] like the guy.
Regarding reputation, I received the following from CP staff: As for your comment on reputation, it was never our intent for reputation to entirely represent technical competence, since it is also tied to behaviour we want to encourage on the site. Also, total reputation isn’t used to apply privileges, it’s always based on certain types of rep, so while one member may have a higher total rep than another, the second member may have a higher Author or Authority rep conveying higher privileges.
Gus Gustafson
-
"How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#?" You actually have lots of options here. 1. Mark it as unclear or incomplete if you feel that it's too ambiguous 2. Downvote it and move on. 3. Answer it. 4. Post a comment asking the user to expand on what their problem actually is given that a simple Google search brings up a million answers. Maybe they have a specific issue. For me there are no stupid questions. There are lazy people, or people who can't ask questions properly due to language or personality, and people who don't know enough to know how to ask the question. Option 4 - getting the poster to update their question to explain why he's asking such an obvious question, and asking for a rundown of what's beem tried - is by far the best. The trick is: how do we do this, and how long do we give a question before it gets categorised into the Lazy Question bucket.
cheers Chris Maunder
Sorry I inject the word "stupid" into the conversation. Hmmm, stupid me, huh ?
-
"How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#?" You actually have lots of options here. 1. Mark it as unclear or incomplete if you feel that it's too ambiguous 2. Downvote it and move on. 3. Answer it. 4. Post a comment asking the user to expand on what their problem actually is given that a simple Google search brings up a million answers. Maybe they have a specific issue. For me there are no stupid questions. There are lazy people, or people who can't ask questions properly due to language or personality, and people who don't know enough to know how to ask the question. Option 4 - getting the poster to update their question to explain why he's asking such an obvious question, and asking for a rundown of what's beem tried - is by far the best. The trick is: how do we do this, and how long do we give a question before it gets categorised into the Lazy Question bucket.
cheers Chris Maunder
For a start we can stop the bitchiness from the answerers. Yes! I said it! Bitchiness! Once someone has responded with a "you can google it" why can't everyone else just either a) move on or b) post an answer (as happened with the question quoted by the OP. Personally I think a stock answer of "you could have googled it - here's a link to a site you would have found - if what you find there isn't clear, update your question appropriately" could be available - and that locks the question to further updating except by the OP. I always thought the really really simple questions were a move by OG's sockpuppet account to boost his points :)
-
Recently I have been visiting quick answers - view unanswered questions. Today, a member posted the question How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#? That was it! No attempted solution. No report of Google searching. No nothing! OK. So now I agree with OriginalGriff regarding misuse of the discussions forums. So I think that we, as a community, need a way to tell the OP that his question is rejected for lack of trying. We also need a mechanism to tell the OP that we think that the answer to his question could be used for nefarious purposes that we, as a community, do not support. Under the Report flag, all we have is Unclear or incomplete. Repost. Not a question. Off-topic. Spam/abusive. The question cited above is none of these. A Google search of "c# occurrences of a character in a string" returned more than 90K answers. So apparently the OP didn't try Googling. The OP may not have been aware of the wealth of online resources. So how do we educate our junior members? I would suggest adding two items to the list Rejected by the Forum. You must at least try to get a solution before you post here. Rejected by the Forum. The answer could be used for bad things. Both of these should remove the question from the forum and send an email to the OP explaining why the action was taken. The OP should be able to click a link in the email and defend his question.
Gus Gustafson
-
"How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#?" You actually have lots of options here. 1. Mark it as unclear or incomplete if you feel that it's too ambiguous 2. Downvote it and move on. 3. Answer it. 4. Post a comment asking the user to expand on what their problem actually is given that a simple Google search brings up a million answers. Maybe they have a specific issue. For me there are no stupid questions. There are lazy people, or people who can't ask questions properly due to language or personality, and people who don't know enough to know how to ask the question. Option 4 - getting the poster to update their question to explain why he's asking such an obvious question, and asking for a rundown of what's beem tried - is by far the best. The trick is: how do we do this, and how long do we give a question before it gets categorised into the Lazy Question bucket.
cheers Chris Maunder
Someone really had a bad day. It already been answered two years ago. counting occurrence of letters in C# program[^] Look a comment down the soln. :laugh:
Wonde Tadesse
-
gggustafson wrote:
Recently ?? I have been visiting quick answers - view unanswered questions.
That question was posted & answered on 26th Oct 2013 !
Unfortunately, CP allows the OP to repost the question by making a minor Improve question entry. I belive that updates the DTG of the question.
Gus Gustafson
-
Recently I have been visiting quick answers - view unanswered questions. Today, a member posted the question How to get count of occurrence of characters in string using c#? That was it! No attempted solution. No report of Google searching. No nothing! OK. So now I agree with OriginalGriff regarding misuse of the discussions forums. So I think that we, as a community, need a way to tell the OP that his question is rejected for lack of trying. We also need a mechanism to tell the OP that we think that the answer to his question could be used for nefarious purposes that we, as a community, do not support. Under the Report flag, all we have is Unclear or incomplete. Repost. Not a question. Off-topic. Spam/abusive. The question cited above is none of these. A Google search of "c# occurrences of a character in a string" returned more than 90K answers. So apparently the OP didn't try Googling. The OP may not have been aware of the wealth of online resources. So how do we educate our junior members? I would suggest adding two items to the list Rejected by the Forum. You must at least try to get a solution before you post here. Rejected by the Forum. The answer could be used for bad things. Both of these should remove the question from the forum and send an email to the OP explaining why the action was taken. The OP should be able to click a link in the email and defend his question.
Gus Gustafson
Another issue is that the original poster rarely comes back and marks the answers for correctness :-(
-
Another issue is that the original poster rarely comes back and marks the answers for correctness :-(
I think it may be worse than that - they don't come back to read the solutions!
Gus Gustafson
-
You are putting words in my mouth. I am not complaining about a legitimate question, i.e., one for wch the OP cannot find an answer on the web, but rather questions with no indication that the OP even tried.
Gus Gustafson
Sorry! I misunderstood you.
