Views to Votes ratio
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
but maybe it helps earn some mugs.
If you have too many, I would accept one or two ;) :rolleyes: :-D
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.
I'll remember that. I've got two right now and an additional one got lost in the mail. Of the two that arrived, one came broken and I have repaired it with superglue. But after two mugs, it gets a bit excessive, like people I serve tea or coffee to might think i work for CP or something. :laugh: I'm going to see if I can wrangle a shirt out of them again for my next win. I have one but it's just a little small. After that, I'll send you my mugs. :laugh:
Real programmers use butterflies
-
I'll remember that. I've got two right now and an additional one got lost in the mail. Of the two that arrived, one came broken and I have repaired it with superglue. But after two mugs, it gets a bit excessive, like people I serve tea or coffee to might think i work for CP or something. :laugh: I'm going to see if I can wrangle a shirt out of them again for my next win. I have one but it's just a little small. After that, I'll send you my mugs. :laugh:
Real programmers use butterflies
No problem, it was a joke. I can buy them in an UK online shop.
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.
-
No problem, it was a joke. I can buy them in an UK online shop.
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.
YOU HAVE A CP SHOP? Aren't you fancy? I am jealous.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
YOU HAVE A CP SHOP? Aren't you fancy? I am jealous.
Real programmers use butterflies
No. I don't have any CP shop. But Chris did marketize some CP stuff in an UK Online shop. CodeProject Mug 20 oz Ceramic Mega Mug by Admin_CP6437 - CafePress[^]
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.
-
Giving the vote to an article is a big resposibility, in my opinion: you have to read it carefully, understand it and have the skills to judge the work done.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?" -- Rigoletto
Well, the vote is often for the code more than for the article.
".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 -
I was hyper-focused on my latest article and took not of the wildly low vote-to-view ratio, and decided to look around at my other articles, and then other author's articles, and the story is the same pretty much everywhere. Despite have sometimes hundreds of thousands of views, the vote count is struggle to eclipse higher than 50 or so votes. The percentage is usually in the 0.001 to 0.002 range, even in the most well received articles. I'm trying an experiment (in my latest article) to see if I can get more people to cast votes without too much effort on their part. On a semi-related note, I've found that writing really huge articles (or multi-part articles) involving significant development effort really don't generate the interest you'd think they would. For example, my SqlXAgent article series required a couple of years to write the code and then the articles, and it was largely ignored. Admittedly, it was a giant waste of time anyway because Microsoft made the dev edion of SQL Server available for free, making my code totally pointless. I'm not complaining about that really, but you come to realize that, more often than not, the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.
".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 don't read it for the articles. :laugh: In most cases, I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on the content, so I very rarely vote. It's similar to (though rather different from) another site I participate on. When the "articles" are simply prose, I can rate them primarily on use of language: "Is the spelling good?" "Is the punctuation good?" "Is the grammar good?" An article can't get a three without all of those. Then: "Was it interesting enough to read to the end?" "Was the theme of the article something which interests me?" Those last two is where a technical site like CP differs greatly from a site with amateur short fiction. It would be most unfair to down-vote (even a three) a technical article simply because I'm not interested in the subject or don't understand it. Similarly (even on YouTube, etc.), an author who says "please vote on this" risks getting a bunch of low-votes simply for being a nitwit. If a site were to insist that a reader cast a vote ("you read it to the end, you must have an opinion"), it would generate a Texas-sized low-vote count. In short, if more votes are cast, more of them will be low-votes. It's better to have a few well-thought-out votes (both high and low) than a million meaningless votes cast under duress. Another problem, with low-votes in particular, is that if a reader casts a low-vote due to poor writing, then the author publishes an edit with the writing corrected, the low-vote remains in place. No one will go back and re-vote when updates are published. So, I try not to cast low-votes and I'm not qualified to cast high-votes on subjects I don't understand. One of the best features of CP's rating system is the weighting and the elimination of outlying votes. I wish other sites would do that too. Were I to create a site with (non-technical) articles and a rating system, I might do something like:
0 - 1 - 2 Spelling?
0 - 1 - 2 Punctuation?
0 - 1 - 2 Grammar?
0 - 1 - 2 Subject/theme?
0 - 1 - 2 Would you recommend it to others? -
I don't read it for the articles. :laugh: In most cases, I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on the content, so I very rarely vote. It's similar to (though rather different from) another site I participate on. When the "articles" are simply prose, I can rate them primarily on use of language: "Is the spelling good?" "Is the punctuation good?" "Is the grammar good?" An article can't get a three without all of those. Then: "Was it interesting enough to read to the end?" "Was the theme of the article something which interests me?" Those last two is where a technical site like CP differs greatly from a site with amateur short fiction. It would be most unfair to down-vote (even a three) a technical article simply because I'm not interested in the subject or don't understand it. Similarly (even on YouTube, etc.), an author who says "please vote on this" risks getting a bunch of low-votes simply for being a nitwit. If a site were to insist that a reader cast a vote ("you read it to the end, you must have an opinion"), it would generate a Texas-sized low-vote count. In short, if more votes are cast, more of them will be low-votes. It's better to have a few well-thought-out votes (both high and low) than a million meaningless votes cast under duress. Another problem, with low-votes in particular, is that if a reader casts a low-vote due to poor writing, then the author publishes an edit with the writing corrected, the low-vote remains in place. No one will go back and re-vote when updates are published. So, I try not to cast low-votes and I'm not qualified to cast high-votes on subjects I don't understand. One of the best features of CP's rating system is the weighting and the elimination of outlying votes. I wish other sites would do that too. Were I to create a site with (non-technical) articles and a rating system, I might do something like:
0 - 1 - 2 Spelling?
0 - 1 - 2 Punctuation?
0 - 1 - 2 Grammar?
0 - 1 - 2 Subject/theme?
0 - 1 - 2 Would you recommend it to others?PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Were I to create a site with (non-technical) articles and a rating system, I might do something like:
0 - 1 - 2 Spelling?
0 - 1 - 2 Punctuation?
0 - 1 - 2 Grammar?
0 - 1 - 2 Subject/theme?
0 - 1 - 2 Would you recommend it to others?If we can't get people to vote one time, giving them categories is gonna bored them to tears... :)
".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 -
I don't read it for the articles. :laugh: In most cases, I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on the content, so I very rarely vote. It's similar to (though rather different from) another site I participate on. When the "articles" are simply prose, I can rate them primarily on use of language: "Is the spelling good?" "Is the punctuation good?" "Is the grammar good?" An article can't get a three without all of those. Then: "Was it interesting enough to read to the end?" "Was the theme of the article something which interests me?" Those last two is where a technical site like CP differs greatly from a site with amateur short fiction. It would be most unfair to down-vote (even a three) a technical article simply because I'm not interested in the subject or don't understand it. Similarly (even on YouTube, etc.), an author who says "please vote on this" risks getting a bunch of low-votes simply for being a nitwit. If a site were to insist that a reader cast a vote ("you read it to the end, you must have an opinion"), it would generate a Texas-sized low-vote count. In short, if more votes are cast, more of them will be low-votes. It's better to have a few well-thought-out votes (both high and low) than a million meaningless votes cast under duress. Another problem, with low-votes in particular, is that if a reader casts a low-vote due to poor writing, then the author publishes an edit with the writing corrected, the low-vote remains in place. No one will go back and re-vote when updates are published. So, I try not to cast low-votes and I'm not qualified to cast high-votes on subjects I don't understand. One of the best features of CP's rating system is the weighting and the elimination of outlying votes. I wish other sites would do that too. Were I to create a site with (non-technical) articles and a rating system, I might do something like:
0 - 1 - 2 Spelling?
0 - 1 - 2 Punctuation?
0 - 1 - 2 Grammar?
0 - 1 - 2 Subject/theme?
0 - 1 - 2 Would you recommend it to others?PIEBALDconsult wrote:
I don't read it for the articles. :)
Comment of the week. :laugh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I don't read it for the articles. :laugh: In most cases, I don't feel qualified to render an opinion on the content, so I very rarely vote. It's similar to (though rather different from) another site I participate on. When the "articles" are simply prose, I can rate them primarily on use of language: "Is the spelling good?" "Is the punctuation good?" "Is the grammar good?" An article can't get a three without all of those. Then: "Was it interesting enough to read to the end?" "Was the theme of the article something which interests me?" Those last two is where a technical site like CP differs greatly from a site with amateur short fiction. It would be most unfair to down-vote (even a three) a technical article simply because I'm not interested in the subject or don't understand it. Similarly (even on YouTube, etc.), an author who says "please vote on this" risks getting a bunch of low-votes simply for being a nitwit. If a site were to insist that a reader cast a vote ("you read it to the end, you must have an opinion"), it would generate a Texas-sized low-vote count. In short, if more votes are cast, more of them will be low-votes. It's better to have a few well-thought-out votes (both high and low) than a million meaningless votes cast under duress. Another problem, with low-votes in particular, is that if a reader casts a low-vote due to poor writing, then the author publishes an edit with the writing corrected, the low-vote remains in place. No one will go back and re-vote when updates are published. So, I try not to cast low-votes and I'm not qualified to cast high-votes on subjects I don't understand. One of the best features of CP's rating system is the weighting and the elimination of outlying votes. I wish other sites would do that too. Were I to create a site with (non-technical) articles and a rating system, I might do something like:
0 - 1 - 2 Spelling?
0 - 1 - 2 Punctuation?
0 - 1 - 2 Grammar?
0 - 1 - 2 Subject/theme?
0 - 1 - 2 Would you recommend it to others?I think we have similar views on this. I don't vote on an article unless I understand it and think it's a 5. This often goes along with bookmarking it in case I want to refer to it later. If I can't give it 5, I would usually offer a comment and read the author's reply before giving it less than 5. The only exception would be something so horrid that it immediately deserves a 1.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I think we have similar views on this. I don't vote on an article unless I understand it and think it's a 5. This often goes along with bookmarking it in case I want to refer to it later. If I can't give it 5, I would usually offer a comment and read the author's reply before giving it less than 5. The only exception would be something so horrid that it immediately deserves a 1.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Greg Utas wrote:
The only exception would be something so horrid that it immediately deserves a 1.
In which case I would go for a "poor quality or unclear / imcomplete". If it really deserves a bunch of 1s, it doesn't deserve to be online.
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.
-
Greg Utas wrote:
The only exception would be something so horrid that it immediately deserves a 1.
In which case I would go for a "poor quality or unclear / imcomplete". If it really deserves a bunch of 1s, it doesn't deserve to be online.
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.
I never noticed that you could flag an article that had already been published. :doh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
I never noticed that you could flag an article that had already been published. :doh:
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.The red flag is always available, in all post types.
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.
