I fail to understand why people even bother...
-
I think what Chris shoudl really do is code something into the rating scripts that will not allow a rating to be posted without a explanation of why that rating was assigned. The reason why I say that is because to me, ratings and feedback are the primary validation of what I've provided to the community, and the feedback generated helps me improved. I know it sounds like I'm beating a dead horse here, but thats the way I see it.
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
How about a more detailed rating system? Instead of a generic 1-5 rating, break it into segments that are worth 1-5 each. 1) Content (How thorough is the article content) 2) Comprehension (How easy is the article to understand) 3) Functionality (How well did the code/ideas in article work) etc.
My 20 favorite films:
http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=8912 -
Some people post without commenting because they are in reality too shy to come out in the open and say "This is wrong. I think you should do [--] like that." Maybe it should even be possible to post anonymous comments with the rating. (Okay I know it's possible to post anonymously anyway) But that it doesn't say who says whatever, but shows up in the same way as a vote. Not sure if anyone can follow that - it's a bit rambly... I'll re-explain if necessary. Paul ;) Computers let you make more mistakes than any other invention in history...with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
Paul van der Walt wrote: Maybe it should even be possible to post anonymous comments with the rating. (Okay I know it's possible to post anonymously anyway) But that it doesn't say who says whatever, but shows up in the same way as a vote. Then you will get anonymous posts with messages that say '1' or 'This sucks' or something helpful like that.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
Venet wrote: Changing the topic again? OMG!!!! Ah.. Sher you know me... always trying my best. Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote: Ah.. Sher you know me... even types in Irish... :-D
Look at the world about you and trust to your own convictions. - Ansel Adams
-
John Aldrich wrote: I fail to understand why people even bother... ...to care about the rating system at all. It's totaly skewed, extremly corse-grain (why a 1? wording? layout? concept? I hate the author?), and lots of other reasons. Ignore the voting, and instead look at the total number of views (which counts repeated viewings) and postings. What would be VERY GOOD THING to put in INSTEAD of the voting would be how many people have bookmarked the page - that would be a MUCH better representation of "worthfullness". But I'm pissing into the wind here, since we've also got issues with a ton of non-active users and continually declining postings.
Todd C. Wilson (meme@nopcode.com) NOPcode.com "Flow with whatever may happen and let your mind be free: Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing. This is the Way." - Chuang-Tzu "Zen in the Martial Arts"
Todd C. Wilson wrote: But I'm pissing into the wind here Only if you have an issue or suggestion and don't bother emailing me about it. I can't promise to act on it immediately but I can promise to read it and take it into account. You tell me what you think is the best indication of an articles worth, as well as a way to accurately gather that information. The 'Most popular articles[^]' has a few options - let me know which is the best for you and I can experiment. That goes for everyone else too. I'm not sure why you care about members who choose only to get the newsltter and not actively post messages and articles. I also am confused about your comment about reduced postings. How do you mean? Here's some stats:
Page views
Jun 03 14,144,098 (so far)
May 03 14,156,221
Apr 03 13,468,113Articles posted and updated:
Jun 03: 234 (so far) May 03: 253 Apr 03: 185Messages Posted:
Jun 03 25953 (so far) May 03 25025 Apr 03 24440The numbers certainly fluctuate seasionally but I don't see any drop off :confused: cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Completely off topic.... Just wondering if you have Irish or Scottish ancestors?* *Aldrich is a Gaelic name as far as I can remember Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Sounds a little germanic to me, but I could be talking a load of Bill Sergio :rolleyes: Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Todd C. Wilson wrote: But I'm pissing into the wind here Only if you have an issue or suggestion and don't bother emailing me about it. I can't promise to act on it immediately but I can promise to read it and take it into account. You tell me what you think is the best indication of an articles worth, as well as a way to accurately gather that information. The 'Most popular articles[^]' has a few options - let me know which is the best for you and I can experiment. That goes for everyone else too. I'm not sure why you care about members who choose only to get the newsltter and not actively post messages and articles. I also am confused about your comment about reduced postings. How do you mean? Here's some stats:
Page views
Jun 03 14,144,098 (so far)
May 03 14,156,221
Apr 03 13,468,113Articles posted and updated:
Jun 03: 234 (so far) May 03: 253 Apr 03: 185Messages Posted:
Jun 03 25953 (so far) May 03 25025 Apr 03 24440The numbers certainly fluctuate seasionally but I don't see any drop off :confused: cheers, Chris Maunder
Just an idea Chris, but how about displaying the name of the first voter *evil chuckle* That would dissuade the anonymous 1 vote :-D Elaine (conniving fluffy tigress) The tigress is here :-D
-
Todd C. Wilson wrote: But I'm pissing into the wind here Only if you have an issue or suggestion and don't bother emailing me about it. I can't promise to act on it immediately but I can promise to read it and take it into account. You tell me what you think is the best indication of an articles worth, as well as a way to accurately gather that information. The 'Most popular articles[^]' has a few options - let me know which is the best for you and I can experiment. That goes for everyone else too. I'm not sure why you care about members who choose only to get the newsltter and not actively post messages and articles. I also am confused about your comment about reduced postings. How do you mean? Here's some stats:
Page views
Jun 03 14,144,098 (so far)
May 03 14,156,221
Apr 03 13,468,113Articles posted and updated:
Jun 03: 234 (so far) May 03: 253 Apr 03: 185Messages Posted:
Jun 03 25953 (so far) May 03 25025 Apr 03 24440The numbers certainly fluctuate seasionally but I don't see any drop off :confused: cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm not sure why you care about members who choose only to get the newsltter and not actively post messages and articles. I also am confused about your comment about reduced postings. How do you mean? Those aren't really the users that I'm concerned with. What concerns me is the fact that ratings are being foisted on those of us that do contribute articles whilst providing absolutely no explanation of why that rating was assigned. True that this doesn't neccesarily happen in all cases, but as far as my personal experience its seemed to be an issue with the last couple of articles that I've posted -- content not withstanding. Chris Maunder wrote: You tell me what you think is the best indication of an articles worth, as well as a way to accurately gather that information. What I'm suggesting is a revised system in which a rating cannot be assigned by the viewer of an article without providing some type of explanation, or even further, a rating system that breaks down an article into smaller catagories like ...content, usability, code correctness, etc. Something that provides us with REAL feedback as well as an explanation of why. I feel that is the most important step to helping us improve ourselves.
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
Just an idea Chris, but how about displaying the name of the first voter *evil chuckle* That would dissuade the anonymous 1 vote :-D Elaine (conniving fluffy tigress) The tigress is here :-D
Wouldn't that like -- disenfranchise them or something? *dumb look*
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm not sure why you care about members who choose only to get the newsltter and not actively post messages and articles. I also am confused about your comment about reduced postings. How do you mean? Those aren't really the users that I'm concerned with. What concerns me is the fact that ratings are being foisted on those of us that do contribute articles whilst providing absolutely no explanation of why that rating was assigned. True that this doesn't neccesarily happen in all cases, but as far as my personal experience its seemed to be an issue with the last couple of articles that I've posted -- content not withstanding. Chris Maunder wrote: You tell me what you think is the best indication of an articles worth, as well as a way to accurately gather that information. What I'm suggesting is a revised system in which a rating cannot be assigned by the viewer of an article without providing some type of explanation, or even further, a rating system that breaks down an article into smaller catagories like ...content, usability, code correctness, etc. Something that provides us with REAL feedback as well as an explanation of why. I feel that is the most important step to helping us improve ourselves.
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
John Aldrich wrote: What I'm suggesting is a revised system in which a rating cannot be assigned by the viewer of an article without providing some type of explanation, or even further, a rating system that breaks down an article into smaller catagories like ...content, usability, code correctness, etc. Something that provides us with REAL feedback as well as an explanation of why. I feel that is the most important step to helping us improve ourselves. Excellent, excellent ideas. The concept of not allowing a vote without a comment is one that I've been wrestling with for a while. It's simply been an issue of time, and whether I retro fit this to the current ASP system or hold off till the never-ending rewrite is done. With regards to voting for categories, some categories won't apply for some articles, and some voters won't want to vote for all categories. Eg a reader may love the article's style but not actually bother to vote for the code - or an article may not actually have code. Obviously when an article is posted the categories that make sense for that article can be speciofied at posting time, but what about the other 4,500 articles we have? I'm not saying this won't happen because it's too much of a legacy problem, but it is something that has to be considered. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
... to rate articles poorly and fail to provide any explanation of why they rated them in that manner. It's fustrating to spend hours learning a method to do something, post code to help beginners such as myself out, and then be rated poorly and not have any explanation given. Take my article on Creating a Simple Property Sheet Based Wizard as an example. I provided a simple method do this based on my recent study into how to do it. True, it's not a -complete- guide to how to set up a fully functional wizard, but instead targetted at helping beginners actually get the damned thing to show up. There are plenty of articles on CodeProject and other sites that demonstrate the internals better than I could. I feel that by posting that article I'm offering up something to help beginners along based on my own personal experince. To check back on an article here and find lousy rating with no explanation is FUSTRATING. Granted I only rated my own article with a 3 ( since it's not a soup to nuts article ) I think that peopel should atleast justify their ratings and provide constructive critisism. I invite you to check the article out and offer up your constructive opinions.
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
I have a few critiques, if you're interested. I humbly suggest that the reason for the low rating is primarily the presentation format, not the content. 1. Show a screenshot of each GUI that you have steps for 2. Show the steps as 1, 2, 3, using HTML numbering 3. If you want to show emphasis, probably best to judiciously bold, rather than bold, italicize, and change the font/size. 4. Take the process one step further and create a sample of two wizard property pages 5. Provide a download 6. Spellcheck (it's not bad, but there are a few glaring errors) If you'd like to make a go at it with the above suggestions, I'd be happy to do the final editing. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka Muraoka
Microsoft deliberately adds arbitrary layers of complexity to make it difficult to deliver Windows features on non-Windows platforms--Microsoft's "Halloween files" -
Paul van der Walt wrote: Maybe it should even be possible to post anonymous comments with the rating. (Okay I know it's possible to post anonymously anyway) But that it doesn't say who says whatever, but shows up in the same way as a vote. Then you will get anonymous posts with messages that say '1' or 'This sucks' or something helpful like that.
[
](http://www.canucks.com)Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
-
Brian Delahunty wrote: Ah.. Sher you know me... even types in Irish... :-D
Look at the world about you and trust to your own convictions. - Ansel Adams
Megan Forbes wrote: even types in Irish... hehe :-D Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Sounds a little germanic to me, but I could be talking a load of Bill Sergio :rolleyes: Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: but I could be talking a load of Bill Sergio :-D Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Just an idea Chris, but how about displaying the name of the first voter *evil chuckle* That would dissuade the anonymous 1 vote :-D Elaine (conniving fluffy tigress) The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: how about displaying the name of the first voter I would imagine there are people out there that would not want to seem harsh or maybe would vote just to kiss umm.. yeah, that lower section.. ;) How about having a vote to be a comment log with a vote attached which you view when you click on the rating, not simply a head count. That is, when you vote you have a comment box and a vote level. Maybe forc a comment on a votes with a level less than 3. Could still be anonymous but at least there would be feedback with negative votes which would all you to determine if they had any validity. Rocky Moore <><