Harsher spam controls
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" I don't agree with that one, it would unfairly exclude people asking for help in the topical forums. Maybe choose not to show article-messages in the question time instead?
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
What's the harm in requiring someone to log in to ask a question? If you forced people to take an extra minute to register, it would cut down on the quantity of garbage questions as well, don't you think? Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
I suggest the following as possibilities: 1) No voting on articles allowed until at least the achievement of bronze status - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to create bullshit accounts 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" sidebar - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to post bullshit comments on their own articles 3) No anonymous posts allowed as the root of anything 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 1) No voting on articles allowed until at least the achievement of bronze status I would agree with this one, except that votes are weighted already so surely the pre-bronze account doesn't carry a lot of weight once others start voting for something. Of course, if something only gets one vote then it doesn't matter the weighting of the voter. Jeff Varszegi wrote: 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" sidebar I can see where you are coming from on this. But lots of people don't like the idea of signing up for things. It might put people off the site. Jeff Varszegi wrote: 3) No anonymous posts allowed as the root of anything I'd go with this one, but it does preclude #2 by default. So maybe, no anonymous initial posts in the Lounge, Soapbox & people's article forums might be better. [Actually - I think you must be signed in to post in the Lounge already] Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Again, I can see where you are coming from on this, but what about companies where the external IP address will look the same no matter what internal address is used. And what about people who have Remote Desktop Connections, or can route through VPNs - they can be the same person but appear otherwise because they can route the request round different networks.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar Coming soon: The Second EuroCPian Event
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 1) No voting on articles allowed until at least the achievement of bronze status I would agree with this one, except that votes are weighted already so surely the pre-bronze account doesn't carry a lot of weight once others start voting for something. Of course, if something only gets one vote then it doesn't matter the weighting of the voter. Jeff Varszegi wrote: 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" sidebar I can see where you are coming from on this. But lots of people don't like the idea of signing up for things. It might put people off the site. Jeff Varszegi wrote: 3) No anonymous posts allowed as the root of anything I'd go with this one, but it does preclude #2 by default. So maybe, no anonymous initial posts in the Lounge, Soapbox & people's article forums might be better. [Actually - I think you must be signed in to post in the Lounge already] Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Again, I can see where you are coming from on this, but what about companies where the external IP address will look the same no matter what internal address is used. And what about people who have Remote Desktop Connections, or can route through VPNs - they can be the same person but appear otherwise because they can route the request round different networks.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar Coming soon: The Second EuroCPian Event
4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Again, I can see where you are coming from on this, but what about companies where the external IP address will look the same no matter what internal address is used. And what about people who have Remote Desktop Connections, or can route through VPNs - they can be the same person but appear otherwise because they can route the request round different networks. Yeah, you're right about that. But the thing is, people come to this site to ask their questions because they have a real need (or else they don't), so they're already on the hook. By getting people to sign up, you increase their sense of belonging to a community. That's been my feeling for a long time, and I think it's one reason that Code Project is more successful than the multitude of sites that let you pick any handle you want every time you post an anonymous message. You have personal force here because your messages, articles, etc. are all attached to your avatar. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
I suggest the following as possibilities: 1) No voting on articles allowed until at least the achievement of bronze status - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to create bullshit accounts 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" sidebar - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to post bullshit comments on their own articles 3) No anonymous posts allowed as the root of anything 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address whats so big deal about voteing.... will you jump from the plane if you scored 1s in your comment/articles?
God is Real, unless declared Integer.
-
What's the harm in requiring someone to log in to ask a question? If you forced people to take an extra minute to register, it would cut down on the quantity of garbage questions as well, don't you think? Regards, Jeff Varszegi
For you, or me, it wouldn't pose any problem, but with so many sites requiring you to log in to access mediocre information a lot of people are very cautious about signing up with new web sites until they've had a chance to experience it. CodeProject would be preventing a large number of new visitors from using the site and hopefully becoming members.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
I suggest the following as possibilities: 1) No voting on articles allowed until at least the achievement of bronze status - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to create bullshit accounts 2) No inclusion of anonymous comments/questions in the "Question Time" sidebar - Hopefully, this will reduce the incentive for people to post bullshit comments on their own articles 3) No anonymous posts allowed as the root of anything 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address This causes problems for people from the same company behind a NAT (such as myself and Ian Darling). Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address whats so big deal about voteing.... will you jump from the plane if you scored 1s in your comment/articles?
God is Real, unless declared Integer.
No, I won't "jump from the plane", but thanks for the snotty tone. Your comment's not very thoughtful. Either the voting system has merit and people care about it (and they do), or else it can be done away with altogether. People wouldn't compete for votes if they thought they were no big deal. They're a major feedback mechanism in the site, and they affect the ranking of articles, among other things. You haven't written articles, and people pretty often vote you 1 on your posts, so your attitude is understandable; it's just not very realistic. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
For you, or me, it wouldn't pose any problem, but with so many sites requiring you to log in to access mediocre information a lot of people are very cautious about signing up with new web sites until they've had a chance to experience it. CodeProject would be preventing a large number of new visitors from using the site and hopefully becoming members.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
I would say that the site could stand to be a little more selective. Some of the articles and comments posted lately don't seem to be very well received. I'm also pretty sure that a fair percentage of the million members are really David Stephen Rule in disguise. :-D I think that a site of this size is similar to a company, in that its strategies should change as it grows; it should no longer be focused on getting page hits at any cost, since it's so well known. I first came to CP because a colleague recommended it. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
Jeff Varszegi wrote: 4) No voting for the same article twice from the same IP address This causes problems for people from the same company behind a NAT (such as myself and Ian Darling). Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Yep, I realize that now. You're right. There's probably no foolproof way to figure out someone's identity-- even sites like eBay have this problem, and they have the luxury of attaching people's identities to payment methods! Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
No, I won't "jump from the plane", but thanks for the snotty tone. Your comment's not very thoughtful. Either the voting system has merit and people care about it (and they do), or else it can be done away with altogether. People wouldn't compete for votes if they thought they were no big deal. They're a major feedback mechanism in the site, and they affect the ranking of articles, among other things. You haven't written articles, and people pretty often vote you 1 on your posts, so your attitude is understandable; it's just not very realistic. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
yeah what ever makes you happy. I give you 5.
God is Real, unless declared Integer.
-
yeah what ever makes you happy. I give you 5.
God is Real, unless declared Integer.
:) All I'm saying is this: in the old days, no email system had spam control, because there was no spam. Now it's a necessity; my main Yahoo address gets about a hundred spam messages a day! Also, I've noticed some people starting to grumble on CP because of the spam articles and suchlike things. I don't know what the best solution is. Also, I don't think you should change your posting style just because you get some ones-- I get them a fair bit myself, mostly because I refuse to be a Microsoft fanboy. I always call it like I see it. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
-
:) All I'm saying is this: in the old days, no email system had spam control, because there was no spam. Now it's a necessity; my main Yahoo address gets about a hundred spam messages a day! Also, I've noticed some people starting to grumble on CP because of the spam articles and suchlike things. I don't know what the best solution is. Also, I don't think you should change your posting style just because you get some ones-- I get them a fair bit myself, mostly because I refuse to be a Microsoft fanboy. I always call it like I see it. Regards, Jeff Varszegi
Jeff Varszegi wrote: I always call it like I see it. now you know why i get 1s many times... i have had my share of 5s too :-) mostly in VC++ forum :-)
God is Real, unless declared Integer.