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?
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[^]
-
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[^]
syed shanu wrote:
Author need's there own freedom to update their articles
Absolutely. I'm not asking you to tell us step by step what you'll do. I was saying that you said "you'd update it" but that it didn't provide enough information / timeline for us to know whether you would update it today, tomorrow, or next week, and whether the updates would address the security issue. Step back and think about this from the point of view of an information provider. It's far, far better to have an article offline for a day or a few days and then have it back with solid information than it is to just leave it up, knowing hundreds of people were viewing, and using, that code. With regards to that message posted, my apologies! I was testing your account to ensure you had access to your articles and made a post while still testing your account. All fixed.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
That's the one I thought of immediately. Also of many late nights at work playing on the PCs that had enough horse power to play the game decently.
-
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
Thank you Nish for your message, You are one of my Inshpiration to writing articles.
-
syed shanu wrote:
Author need's there own freedom to update their articles
Absolutely. I'm not asking you to tell us step by step what you'll do. I was saying that you said "you'd update it" but that it didn't provide enough information / timeline for us to know whether you would update it today, tomorrow, or next week, and whether the updates would address the security issue. Step back and think about this from the point of view of an information provider. It's far, far better to have an article offline for a day or a few days and then have it back with solid information than it is to just leave it up, knowing hundreds of people were viewing, and using, that code. With regards to that message posted, my apologies! I was testing your account to ensure you had access to your articles and made a post while still testing your account. All fixed.
cheers Chris Maunder
I accept what you mean Mr. Chris but still i did't get answer to my question. 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 don't know the reason behind this as you know all the down voted members are visiting CP regularly. 4)Day before 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. I don't think that article is Extremely poor quality and Misleading to others. You can read the article first i will start with question in that article as
How to create a Login page?
How to check valid user from Login and redirect to main page?
How to display Logged in user name in all pages?
How to bind data to Grid?
How to search data and display in Grid?
How to Insert/Select/Update and delete data from grid to database?
How to write N-Tire Application for Asp.Net or for Winform?
How to create a simple ASP.Net Web Application?Here its clear that the article is mainly dealing with what, and what the readers can get benefit from this article. For this article i don't think the Password security and ASP.NET Authentication is needed. If i have added user management in that article then surely i will be explain about Password Hashing and ASP.NET Authentication. As you can see that the goal of that article is not related to security or Authentication. This article is tutorial based and it has clear view of what users can get benefit from that. All the down vote was regarding Security and Authentication.I feel it was additional requirement needed to be added to that article so that the readers can get more detailed benefit. The reason for deleting all my other article is Mainly due to You Mr.Chris . Because you are main responsible person to CP. You should treat and post message very carefully so that others dont get hurt in that. Your message here in this conversations with other members.**
However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
**It seems like your intention is mainly focused on deleting that article rather then improving the article.Even during your downvote message you pointed as to delete the
-
I accept what you mean Mr. Chris but still i did't get answer to my question. 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 don't know the reason behind this as you know all the down voted members are visiting CP regularly. 4)Day before 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. I don't think that article is Extremely poor quality and Misleading to others. You can read the article first i will start with question in that article as
How to create a Login page?
How to check valid user from Login and redirect to main page?
How to display Logged in user name in all pages?
How to bind data to Grid?
How to search data and display in Grid?
How to Insert/Select/Update and delete data from grid to database?
How to write N-Tire Application for Asp.Net or for Winform?
How to create a simple ASP.Net Web Application?Here its clear that the article is mainly dealing with what, and what the readers can get benefit from this article. For this article i don't think the Password security and ASP.NET Authentication is needed. If i have added user management in that article then surely i will be explain about Password Hashing and ASP.NET Authentication. As you can see that the goal of that article is not related to security or Authentication. This article is tutorial based and it has clear view of what users can get benefit from that. All the down vote was regarding Security and Authentication.I feel it was additional requirement needed to be added to that article so that the readers can get more detailed benefit. The reason for deleting all my other article is Mainly due to You Mr.Chris . Because you are main responsible person to CP. You should treat and post message very carefully so that others dont get hurt in that. Your message here in this conversations with other members.**
However, the big guns brought out the really BFGs. The article is no more.
**It seems like your intention is mainly focused on deleting that article rather then improving the article.Even during your downvote message you pointed as to delete the
syed shanu wrote:
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
OK
syed shanu wrote:
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.
OK
syed shanu wrote:
Day before 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
Yes there was. Troy Hunt, a very influential blogger and expert in authentication picked up on your article and slammed it. He, and his twitter followers, were very damning of your article. The community immediately took note of your article en masse and the down voting started.
syed shanu wrote:
For this article i don't think the Password security and ASP.NET Authentication is needed
An excellent decision! Remove it and you have an article on CRUD. (I do have to ask, though: why do we need another article on CRUD? We have dozens and dozens and dozens)
syed shanu wrote:
It seems like your intention is mainly focused on deleting that article rather then improving the article
My intention, as I have repeated multiple times, was to prevent dangerous code from being disseminated. You are an MVP. Your articles carry a lot of weight and the assumption that what you write is solid code.
syed shanu wrote:
No I cont accept that because its good to find the solution rather then just deleting the issue part
You've completely ignored my point. The point I've made many times. Your article contained dangerous information and you gave no indication of when or how your update would take place. You had access to your article at all times and you could have simply updated and republished it. I was not willing to keep dangerous code lying around indefinitely.
cheers Chris Maunder
