Welcome, Newcomer to Code Project QA : but, first, let us insult you, and down-vote your question
-
V. wrote:
why everyone is against "homework" questions though. I don't really care as long as that person proves he put in some work already
I've never answered Q&A here but did on other forums for far too long so I know that the number of people who have genuinely tried to create a solution and failed is minimal at best. My main reason for not helping with homework however is that ultimately it does not aid the learner in the long run. The teacher will be presented with a complete solution with no explanation of how it was come by and therefore no knowledge of the student's weaknesses or misunderstanding. The student will tick this off as another task completed and is very unlikely to care whether any real understanding of the points at issue has been gained. It is therefore right to see getting homework answers as cheating but it is ultimately students cheating themselves.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
But all of those points could just as easily apply to non-homework "no effort" questions. If someone is being paid to write code but doesn't know how to solve a basic problem, writing their code for them will not aid them in the long run. If they take your code and present it to their project manager as their own work, the PM has no knowledge of their weaknesses. The PM will keep assigning tasks, and the employee will keep expecting other people to do the work for them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
Is it absurd, or totally unrealistic
No, and I speak as one who has been guilty of such misdemeanours as you describe. However, there are times when the carelessness, lack of realistic expectations and sheer stupidity of some questions pricks that part of my brain that tends to blow a fuse. The foregoing is a reason, not an excuse (for which there is none).
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I speak as one who has been guilty of such misdemeanours as you describe
That could be why Bill didn't include you in the respected members list... Jussaying! :doh: [EDIT] You may have noticed that I weren't there either... :doh: [/EDIT]
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
Oh I hadn't spotted that - was going to say I 100% agreed with Bill - except the bit about Nagy being respected :laugh:
KeithBarrow.net[^] - It might not be very good, but at least it is free!
Please note he said "others like Nagy". This did not necessarily include Nagy in the "respected" group but had him in another group which by boolean analysis is therefore not respected. However, I do have respect for Nagy anyway.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
I'm sure that "somebody" would get pissed off and think that Griff was only banning him because he felt his rep points were threatened... :laugh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
[^] : the comments Apparently this pattern of insulting and down-voting newcomers, and others, is just not going to stop. It literally makes me sick to see this. I made a "vow" a few years ago to express my satisfaction and appreciation for many years (14+ now) of learning here on CodeProject by taking an active role on QA. Over the last few years, I have observed a very small number of individuals who have exhibited consistent anti-social, and hostile, behavior towards newcomers, and other CP members active in answering QA questions, etc. Another disturbing pattern I have observed is that the "reputation at any cost" behavior or a few very high-rep QA posters has, in my humble opinion, had the effect of "modeling" gaming the rep system for some bright, relatively new, posters. I have observed some of the most respected, and high-ranking, members of CP, like Marc Clifton, and Pete O'Hanlon publicly express that they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there. Other CP members who I know are very technically competent, like Nagy Vilmos, have also publicly stated they withdrew from QA because of negative behavior there. Yes, I have spoken out about what I observe in QA, many times over the years. I have reported comments, or solutions, as abusive when I thought it appropriate ... but, always "reluctantly." My respected technical peers and mentors, I think "we" can do better than this. Yes, it's "sticky:" no one wishes to see the relative (say, compared to StackOverFlow) laissez-faire ambiance of CodeProject turn into a rigid, draconian, "by the book," environment. And, we do get people posting on QA who are obviously ... or soon prove they ... are shirking homework, are, indeed, lazy, or, who are almost hopelessly confused. imho, some of those folks deserve down-voting and removal of posts asap. But, I think no one deserves being belittled, demeaned. As someone who has spent a significant percentage of his adult life living in Asia, I am aware of the possible difficulties for people whose mother-tongue is not English in using this site, and I am aware of the fact that for some Asian cultures what, for a western person, is a casual slight or "teasing," for an Asian person is much more than casual when seen through the lens of "face." I'm near the point (rep level as "Authority") where I have almost reached
I understand exactly what you mean. Yes, the question and comments of your example look way too familiar. I have been a CP member for nearly 12 years, but until the last couple of years, I was too busy to participate much. I no longer participate in the Q&A section as I have been trolled by a couple of the high ranking members numerous times. These same members, not just one, seem to down vote each question and many answers -> even if the answers are correct and marked solved by the person asking the question. My philosophy is that if I don’t like a question or an online comment, then I’ll just leave it be. No need to hurt someone’s feelings, even if you’re having a bad day or you just like to be mean. People who are just starting out in the industry or learning a new technology are vulnerable and not always confident in their work. Being mean to them and making them feel even more inferior, not only hurts them, but also affects the people in their life. Sometimes I do say things I regret or did not come out right, but I make sure to delete or edit those messages. The thing is, I am not always busy at work anymore and I enjoy helping others, problem solving the members’ question, and reading solutions. It is a great way to stay sharp and learn, while helping others. Since CP members have provided the IT community so many quality articles and tips, I actually wanted to contribute an article. I began one about 6 months ago, but never completed it as I felt it was not feasible to devote a lot of time to something with the risk of others ridicule. My participation now is reading member articles and I also like Kent Sharkey’s posts; that is where it ends. How would I fix the problem of the Q&A section? I would consider getting rid of the point system or change the point system so there would be no down votes. There's already functionality in place to report trolling. Nasty or demeaning comments should be marked as trolling and then those trollers could be warned or even suspended by site administrators.
-
I'm sure that "somebody" would get pissed off and think that Griff was only banning him because he felt his rep points were threatened... :laugh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeI do not think anything here could "threaten" Griff in any way: he is, after all, "original" :)
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
I do not think anything here could "threaten" Griff in any way: he is, after all, "original" :)
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
Yeah, but right now he's got the highest rep point! Who knows how he might react if he were poked down to second place? He might throw a fit and start using all the fowlest Welsh expressions he knows? ;)
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
BillWoodruff wrote:
most respected, and high-ranking, members of CP, like Marc Clifton, and Pete O'Hanlon, as well as other CP members like Nagy Vilmos
Brilliant. :thumbsup:
He mentions "most respected", so that eliminates you and I, for starters. :-D
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I speak as one who has been guilty of such misdemeanours as you describe
That could be why Bill didn't include you in the respected members list... Jussaying! :doh: [EDIT] You may have noticed that I weren't there either... :doh: [/EDIT]
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeCome on, Johnny J., take some Windex to that crystal ball. I did not mention such valued and respected frequent contributors to QA like Richard MacCutchan, Richard Deeming, Sasha LeFavre, Maciej Los, Afzaal Zeeshan, CHill60, Dave K., OriginalGriff, and many others ... Because they do participate in QA. I spoke only of persons who have stopped participating in QA because of (imho) their negative experience there, and commented publicly on that.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
[^] : the comments Apparently this pattern of insulting and down-voting newcomers, and others, is just not going to stop. It literally makes me sick to see this. I made a "vow" a few years ago to express my satisfaction and appreciation for many years (14+ now) of learning here on CodeProject by taking an active role on QA. Over the last few years, I have observed a very small number of individuals who have exhibited consistent anti-social, and hostile, behavior towards newcomers, and other CP members active in answering QA questions, etc. Another disturbing pattern I have observed is that the "reputation at any cost" behavior or a few very high-rep QA posters has, in my humble opinion, had the effect of "modeling" gaming the rep system for some bright, relatively new, posters. I have observed some of the most respected, and high-ranking, members of CP, like Marc Clifton, and Pete O'Hanlon publicly express that they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there. Other CP members who I know are very technically competent, like Nagy Vilmos, have also publicly stated they withdrew from QA because of negative behavior there. Yes, I have spoken out about what I observe in QA, many times over the years. I have reported comments, or solutions, as abusive when I thought it appropriate ... but, always "reluctantly." My respected technical peers and mentors, I think "we" can do better than this. Yes, it's "sticky:" no one wishes to see the relative (say, compared to StackOverFlow) laissez-faire ambiance of CodeProject turn into a rigid, draconian, "by the book," environment. And, we do get people posting on QA who are obviously ... or soon prove they ... are shirking homework, are, indeed, lazy, or, who are almost hopelessly confused. imho, some of those folks deserve down-voting and removal of posts asap. But, I think no one deserves being belittled, demeaned. As someone who has spent a significant percentage of his adult life living in Asia, I am aware of the possible difficulties for people whose mother-tongue is not English in using this site, and I am aware of the fact that for some Asian cultures what, for a western person, is a casual slight or "teasing," for an Asian person is much more than casual when seen through the lens of "face." I'm near the point (rep level as "Authority") where I have almost reached
The problem won't be resolved until all the old programmers are retired or dead. Us old guys are part of the pre-internet era, where you had to muscle through coding problems alone because your network of truly knowledgeable peers was quite small. Along came the internet, and we were glad that we didn't have to read endless unrelated texts to get to the solution of our problem. Google made it even simpler for us. Overall, we developed a certain work ethic regarding coding. By habit, we look for the solution BEFORE asking for help. It's a completely different mind set nowadays, and I'm willing to bet that instructors are even suggesting getting help off the internet.
".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 -
Come on, Johnny J., take some Windex to that crystal ball. I did not mention such valued and respected frequent contributors to QA like Richard MacCutchan, Richard Deeming, Sasha LeFavre, Maciej Los, Afzaal Zeeshan, CHill60, Dave K., OriginalGriff, and many others ... Because they do participate in QA. I spoke only of persons who have stopped participating in QA because of (imho) their negative experience there, and commented publicly on that.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
I was joking. Made sure to put the icon up there... ;)
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
He mentions "most respected", so that eliminates you and I, for starters. :-D
Slacker007 wrote:
that eliminates you and I, for starters.
Not necessarily ! :)
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
Please note he said "others like Nagy". This did not necessarily include Nagy in the "respected" group but had him in another group which by boolean analysis is therefore not respected. However, I do have respect for Nagy anyway.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Thank you, Forogar, for interpreting my words as intended. I have modified my post to (I hope) make it more clear that I did not intend to slight Nagy in any way. I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished, I'm just not familiar with his code, and work, as I am with Marc, and Pete.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
I quite agree. I don't answer Q&A's much myself either, partly because of the fact that you can provide an answer that is 100% correct, but if the OP can't see that or get it to work, then your answer is marked as wrong. And I don't like newcomers telling me that I'm wrong, when I know that I'm not... :suss: But also, there is as you mention a general negative and rude attitude in Q&A. To be honest, I don't think the example you posted was as very good example. It was much nicer than normal, even for Volde... He who must not be named! :doh:
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the timeI'm with you on this one. I had a run in with He who must not be named the other day Could someone help me simplify some lines[^] when he said part of my solution was "potentially incorrect" but didn't have the good grace to tell me which bit until a fair bit of to-and-fro commenting (which of cause garners rep points). I did chuckle though - I'd made a mistake in the wording (not the code, it wasn't mine) and was criticised by the master of incomprehensible commenting :laugh:
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there.
I help out in QA because I want to help others. Other's behaviors do not make me want to stop helping people.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Other's behaviors do not make me want to stop helping people.
And, I respect the quality of your QA posts greatly ! While I try to not let others' behavior affect me, when I see unnecessary ad hominem assault on people it does bother me. I think about all the patient people who, over the years, have mentored me, and shared their knowledge generously with me, in spite of my confusion, or my inept questions. I don't want to participate in an environment where egregious insult is common. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
-
RyanDev wrote:
Other's behaviors do not make me want to stop helping people.
And, I respect the quality of your QA posts greatly ! While I try to not let others' behavior affect me, when I see unnecessary ad hominem assault on people it does bother me. I think about all the patient people who, over the years, have mentored me, and shared their knowledge generously with me, in spite of my confusion, or my inept questions. I don't want to participate in an environment where egregious insult is common. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
BillWoodruff wrote:
ad hominem assault on people it does bother me.
I agree. I've actually chatted with you know who in QA and it is my opinion that he does have good intentions but I think the language barrier and cultural issues get in the way. But before I chatted with him I also felt he was quite rude so it is very understandable that most people feel that way.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Thank you, Forogar, for interpreting my words as intended. I have modified my post to (I hope) make it more clear that I did not intend to slight Nagy in any way. I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished, I'm just not familiar with his code, and work, as I am with Marc, and Pete.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
BillWoodruff wrote:
I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished
It's the first time I hear that expression being used about gin swilling, but there's always a first for everything... :doh: Joke icon, see? ;)
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time -
Thank you, Forogar, for interpreting my words as intended. I have modified my post to (I hope) make it more clear that I did not intend to slight Nagy in any way. I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished, I'm just not familiar with his code, and work, as I am with Marc, and Pete.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
You're welcome. I like your change but it wasn't really necessary as most reasonable people would not actually interpret the original text negatively - and I try not to have anything to do with unreasonable people anyway. ;)
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
-
Come on, Johnny J., take some Windex to that crystal ball. I did not mention such valued and respected frequent contributors to QA like Richard MacCutchan, Richard Deeming, Sasha LeFavre, Maciej Los, Afzaal Zeeshan, CHill60, Dave K., OriginalGriff, and many others ... Because they do participate in QA. I spoke only of persons who have stopped participating in QA because of (imho) their negative experience there, and commented publicly on that.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
I'm honoured to have been included in that list, but will also confess to having been guilty of a ... shall we say, less than tolerant attitude in QA from time to time. I did actually stay away from QA ... and in fact this entire site, for sometime because of the behaviours you mention. However I grew a thicker skin, realised my own worth and came back. I've only really been fully active for the last 3 or 4 years. I will say here and now though - if anyone catches me out being rude or insulting, please call me out on it - nicely though ;P. I can only improve through knowledge and awareness. However a certain member is completely lacking in self-awareness :laugh:
-
The problem won't be resolved until all the old programmers are retired or dead. Us old guys are part of the pre-internet era, where you had to muscle through coding problems alone because your network of truly knowledgeable peers was quite small. Along came the internet, and we were glad that we didn't have to read endless unrelated texts to get to the solution of our problem. Google made it even simpler for us. Overall, we developed a certain work ethic regarding coding. By habit, we look for the solution BEFORE asking for help. It's a completely different mind set nowadays, and I'm willing to bet that instructors are even suggesting getting help off the internet.
".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, 2013I do agree that there may be a "generational experience" aspect to this that helps explain the negative behavior of some members. The key thing, I suggest, is not to let those few who are socially destructive, set the "tone" for the process, and/or, drive other people away. And, I distinguish between being "blunt" and "forceful" in comments and interactions with newcomers, from being insulting. I have seen you give very solid technical answers in a very "blunt" way without insulting anyone, and I enjoy that aspect of your on-line persona. cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
