Article ranking calculation
-
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes. Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1. So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
-
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes. Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1. So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
This is a fairly common issue. A poor article, or one that contains some serious and fundamental flaws, gets lots of upvotes, probably by the author's friends. Is it any wonder we see so many bad samples in Q&A, when they actually try to implement the bad code? Considering the number of downvotes from people who know, including our great and glorious leader, this should have been removed from publication.
-
This is a fairly common issue. A poor article, or one that contains some serious and fundamental flaws, gets lots of upvotes, probably by the author's friends. Is it any wonder we see so many bad samples in Q&A, when they actually try to implement the bad code? Considering the number of downvotes from people who know, including our great and glorious leader, this should have been removed from publication.
The funny thing is, it's still possible to vote to have an article removed because of poor quality yet very few people do that. I have just voted to have this article removed for this very reason, and I'm the first person to do so.
-
The funny thing is, it's still possible to vote to have an article removed because of poor quality yet very few people do that. I have just voted to have this article removed for this very reason, and I'm the first person to do so.
-
I can't see how to do that, apart from the Delete button. Good grief, my eyesight's worse than I thought. :doh:
I suspect that's the issue (not your eyesight), but the fact that it's not prominent that you can do this. By the time you've reached the comments section, having suffered through the article, the flag has disappeared.
-
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes. Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1. So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
I use 'extremely poor quality' to compensate that kind of voting...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
I use 'extremely poor quality' to compensate that kind of voting...
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
The funny thing is, it's still possible to vote to have an article removed because of poor quality yet very few people do that. I have just voted to have this article removed for this very reason, and I'm the first person to do so.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm the first person to do so.
Only because he updated the article, which resets the counter. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes. Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1. So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
Gone by now... the problem is the other 38 remaining. I know that face from other moderation items, I have tried to do my 5c but when it gets approved... all gets away.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Don't if the calculation is correct but this[^] article got me wondering about the weight and removal of the votes. Currently there's 51 votes and it's a high rank (4.91) article. However, it also has a lot of votes of one and from members with high voting weight. Even further 7 votes have been removed which matches the amount of votes of 1. So the question is, should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account and perhaps not to remove the votes so eagerly?
Mika Wendelius wrote:
should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account
It is. Unfortunately there were too many high votes that still outweighed the low votes. A few more big guns downvoting would have tipped the scales. However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Mika Wendelius wrote:
should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account
It is. Unfortunately there were too many high votes that still outweighed the low votes. A few more big guns downvoting would have tipped the scales. However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs.
With snozzcumber sandwiches and a pint of frobscottle? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BFG[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs.
With snozzcumber sandwiches and a pint of frobscottle? :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BFG[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Mika Wendelius wrote:
should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account
It is. Unfortunately there were too many high votes that still outweighed the low votes. A few more big guns downvoting would have tipped the scales. However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
What if votes placed by a gold or platinum member wouldn't be removed at all, regardless of high votes? I believe that could level the situation and votes from these members are more likely to be, how should I say, valid...
This wouldn't solve the issue with the given article. They were mainly low rep votes.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Mika Wendelius wrote:
should the criteria for removing votes take the member voting weight into account
It is. Unfortunately there were too many high votes that still outweighed the low votes. A few more big guns downvoting would have tipped the scales. However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
cheers Chris Maunder
Why was it deleted though? It looks like a decent article, lots of effort, screenshots, code samples and detailed explanation. 40,000 views since December. 2000 code-sample downloads and 50 bookmarks. Can't have been bad enough to have got deleted surely? :~
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
The funny thing is, it's still possible to vote to have an article removed because of poor quality yet very few people do that. I have just voted to have this article removed for this very reason, and I'm the first person to do so.
Copy-pasting my response to Chris : Why was it deleted though? It looks like a decent article, lots of effort, screenshots, code samples and detailed explanation. 40,000 views since December. 2000 code-sample downloads and 50 bookmarks. Can't have been bad enough to have got deleted surely? :~
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Copy-pasting my response to Chris : Why was it deleted though? It looks like a decent article, lots of effort, screenshots, code samples and detailed explanation. 40,000 views since December. 2000 code-sample downloads and 50 bookmarks. Can't have been bad enough to have got deleted surely? :~
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
It was deleted because it contains extremely dangerous code. Not the "hack your machine" type code but "Did they REALLY store passwords like that??" type code. Never reinvent your authentication system if a better, more tested, more secure one is already available.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
It was deleted because it contains extremely dangerous code. Not the "hack your machine" type code but "Did they REALLY store passwords like that??" type code. Never reinvent your authentication system if a better, more tested, more secure one is already available.
cheers Chris Maunder
Dear Mr. Chris Maunder, I have few questions to you. 1) The Article was published one month before since that time it got only upvotes nearly 38 and i can say you that voters are not my friends. 2)The same article was been in CP Home page for more then a week under "Latest Best Picks".Even during that time that article never get any down vote. 3)Only after it was been selected for best article voting it got down vote.So i dont know the reason behind this as you know all the down voted members are visiting CP regularly. 4)Yesterday early morning there was sudden down vote nearly 7 by members with same msg as need Password Security and needs to use ASP.Net Authentication. 5) Even you(Mr. Chris) downvote with the same reason.I reply to your comment that iam working on that i will update my article soon. 6)Do you realy think is that realy hard job (I con't give example) for update the article with password Hashing and with ASP.Net Authentication. 7) As i had reply to your comment that i will update my article with more example.As you know i have published more than 17 articles,so you should consider to wait for a day. 8)For that whole day i work on it and added more example with more exlanation for Authentiacation and for the Password hashing.in the evening when i thought to update the article and publish ,I got the mail as your article has been closed .My whole day work was been wasted. Now iam coming to your replay as you have mention that**> . "It was deleted because it contains extremely dangerous code. Not the "hack your machine" type code but "Did they REALLY store passwords like that??" type code. Never reinvent your authentication system if a better, more tested, more secure one is already available."
.** As i have already mention that i had post a comment reply to you in that article that i will update my article with relevent example.If you have provided a chance for me to update it I would be more happily update that article but you didnt give the time.Perfection has no limitation Mr.Chris as you know last week Cp home page was redirected domain home page ,So the bug can be every where. I think so the meaning of downvote is to improve the article and not to delete the article. Whenever I plan to write a new article first i will deside what are all we are going to add which will be more useful for users.I will make a list and then Start writing. Same like that as you know the Article Title says that it was mainly dealing with CRUD. So i thought it
-
Dear Mr. Chris Maunder, I have few questions to you. 1) The Article was published one month before since that time it got only upvotes nearly 38 and i can say you that voters are not my friends. 2)The same article was been in CP Home page for more then a week under "Latest Best Picks".Even during that time that article never get any down vote. 3)Only after it was been selected for best article voting it got down vote.So i dont know the reason behind this as you know all the down voted members are visiting CP regularly. 4)Yesterday early morning there was sudden down vote nearly 7 by members with same msg as need Password Security and needs to use ASP.Net Authentication. 5) Even you(Mr. Chris) downvote with the same reason.I reply to your comment that iam working on that i will update my article soon. 6)Do you realy think is that realy hard job (I con't give example) for update the article with password Hashing and with ASP.Net Authentication. 7) As i had reply to your comment that i will update my article with more example.As you know i have published more than 17 articles,so you should consider to wait for a day. 8)For that whole day i work on it and added more example with more exlanation for Authentiacation and for the Password hashing.in the evening when i thought to update the article and publish ,I got the mail as your article has been closed .My whole day work was been wasted. Now iam coming to your replay as you have mention that**> . "It was deleted because it contains extremely dangerous code. Not the "hack your machine" type code but "Did they REALLY store passwords like that??" type code. Never reinvent your authentication system if a better, more tested, more secure one is already available."
.** As i have already mention that i had post a comment reply to you in that article that i will update my article with relevent example.If you have provided a chance for me to update it I would be more happily update that article but you didnt give the time.Perfection has no limitation Mr.Chris as you know last week Cp home page was redirected domain home page ,So the bug can be every where. I think so the meaning of downvote is to improve the article and not to delete the article. Whenever I plan to write a new article first i will deside what are all we are going to add which will be more useful for users.I will make a list and then Start writing. Same like that as you know the Article Title says that it was mainly dealing with CRUD. So i thought it
syed shanu wrote:
Do you realy think is that realy hard job (I con't give example) for update the article with password Hashing and with ASP.Net Authentication.
No I don't, but your comment was "I will update the article". You gave no information on how you would update it. This may seem like an arbitrary call by the CodeProject community but the point is that user management is so incredibly important that we cannot have authors promoting insecure solutions. Your very reputation made it imperative that the article be removed from publication. It would have been a trivial matter for you to update your article after it was removed from publication with safe code and then have it resubmitted for moderation (it would have been accepted almost immediately). You still had the ability to update your article. You've deleted and obliterated all your articles. I'm extremely disappointed in that. An article that was dangerous should be taken down immediately and corrected carefully (and not in a panic rush) and then re-presented to the community. Instead of accepting that your example needed work, and learning, you gave up and deleted everything. That's not the attitude of someone who wants to teach, and teach well. This is your choice. We're here if you wish to reconsider.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
syed shanu wrote:
Do you realy think is that realy hard job (I con't give example) for update the article with password Hashing and with ASP.Net Authentication.
No I don't, but your comment was "I will update the article". You gave no information on how you would update it. This may seem like an arbitrary call by the CodeProject community but the point is that user management is so incredibly important that we cannot have authors promoting insecure solutions. Your very reputation made it imperative that the article be removed from publication. It would have been a trivial matter for you to update your article after it was removed from publication with safe code and then have it resubmitted for moderation (it would have been accepted almost immediately). You still had the ability to update your article. You've deleted and obliterated all your articles. I'm extremely disappointed in that. An article that was dangerous should be taken down immediately and corrected carefully (and not in a panic rush) and then re-presented to the community. Instead of accepting that your example needed work, and learning, you gave up and deleted everything. That's not the attitude of someone who wants to teach, and teach well. This is your choice. We're here if you wish to reconsider.
cheers Chris Maunder
Thank you Mr.Chris for your response.
You gave no information on how you would update it.
Author need's there own freedom to update their articles. The comment means that I will explain with proper example and explanation in my article. I'm not writing the article for first time and I can present my article with more good way. The only thing I feel not good was you didn't give me time for updating my article. I found some strange message posted with my ID in The Lounge. It seems like some one else posted with my CP ID. I didn't post any message today in CP Lounge . But I don't understand how the message was posted with my CP ID, and in my email I'm getting response to that post. Kindly check for this issue. http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=4980770#xx4980770xx[^]
