Voting suggestion [blatantly inappropriate content]
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Why not restrict voting rights to
It'd really suck to let one asshole ruin it for everyone else though, wouldn't it? I guess if we attract too many troublemakers it'll become necessary, but i hope we're not there yet... :sigh:
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
I dunno. I'm partial to code-frog's notion about sending the goons out. :-D Jeremy Falcon
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Why not restrict voting rights to
It'd really suck to let one asshole ruin it for everyone else though, wouldn't it? I guess if we attract too many troublemakers it'll become necessary, but i hope we're not there yet... :sigh:
I actually think it would improve things. It would certainly make the voting system *more* credible. I don't think any bumb should be able to cast a vote. I think you need to demonstrate a desire to participate and contribute before you can vote. Silver members and above are a good way to do it. Silver Member *AND* 100 or more posts.
Some assembly required. Code-frog System Architects, Inc.
-- modified at 1:49 Friday 21st October, 2005
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
And our egos are so big that we really care about votes in the SB and lounge? I know it is a fun game, but the only votes that I really care about are article votes, as they guide newbies much more than anything in here. You could also take away the penalties for low votes in the lounge (no greying-out, etc), and then there is less incentive for the kiddies to play. Just thought I'd pop it in there. I for one, don't care, as long as the article votes reflect the article's quality, and I am tempted to wonder if only the gurus could vote on them, would that skew the voting? Are you more and more tempted to only vote 1's and 5's the longer you have been a member, and not vote for the intermediary material at all? (ps - I am not exactly a newbie, but my old account would not let me post to the lounge, due to bugs in the scripts. Anyone with apostrophes in their last name probably has the same trouble. My old account was "David O'Neil". That should put to rest any thoughts that I may be playing the anonymous game.) Debugging - The high art and magic of cussing errors into 'features'
-
I dunno. I'm partial to code-frog's notion about sending the goons out. :-D Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I dunno. I'm partial to code-frog's notion about sending the goons out
Second that, looks like Chris knows who it is. Re: Manual car hire from LAX[^] Or at least who did it to that thread.
DEBUGGING : Removing the needles from the haystack.
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
ya well said vikram, it'll be better if the value of a 'vote' relies on the person who's voting.. for example, a vote casted by a person who's around for 4 yrs should carry more weightage than a person who's less than one month. right?:rolleyes: He is like a one-legged man in a bum kicking competition. -Novjot Sidhu --[v]--
-
ya well said vikram, it'll be better if the value of a 'vote' relies on the person who's voting.. for example, a vote casted by a person who's around for 4 yrs should carry more weightage than a person who's less than one month. right?:rolleyes: He is like a one-legged man in a bum kicking competition. -Novjot Sidhu --[v]--
VivekuniQ wrote:
it'll be better if the value of a 'vote' relies on the person who's voting
It already does. Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
-
ya well said vikram, it'll be better if the value of a 'vote' relies on the person who's voting.. for example, a vote casted by a person who's around for 4 yrs should carry more weightage than a person who's less than one month. right?:rolleyes: He is like a one-legged man in a bum kicking competition. -Novjot Sidhu --[v]--
VivekuniQ wrote:
for example, a vote casted by a person who's around for 4 yrs should carry more weightage than a person who's less than one month. right?
It's already like that ;) - Anders
-
And our egos are so big that we really care about votes in the SB and lounge? I know it is a fun game, but the only votes that I really care about are article votes, as they guide newbies much more than anything in here. You could also take away the penalties for low votes in the lounge (no greying-out, etc), and then there is less incentive for the kiddies to play. Just thought I'd pop it in there. I for one, don't care, as long as the article votes reflect the article's quality, and I am tempted to wonder if only the gurus could vote on them, would that skew the voting? Are you more and more tempted to only vote 1's and 5's the longer you have been a member, and not vote for the intermediary material at all? (ps - I am not exactly a newbie, but my old account would not let me post to the lounge, due to bugs in the scripts. Anyone with apostrophes in their last name probably has the same trouble. My old account was "David O'Neil". That should put to rest any thoughts that I may be playing the anonymous game.) Debugging - The high art and magic of cussing errors into 'features'
RandomMonkey wrote:
And our egos are so big that we really care about votes in the SB and lounge?
One look at the Lounge and the SB this morning made me X| . Every post in the Lounge had 5+ votes, but the SB was worse. Almost *every* post in the SB was grayed out. :|
RandomMonkey wrote:
I am tempted to wonder if only the gurus could vote on them
Think of it as being a citizen of country X but not being allowed to vote unless you're 18/whatever years old. :) I merely suggested that we restrict voting privileges to people who'd been around for a significant amount of time. IMO, it's not unreasonable to restrict voting rights till the user has posted, say, 50 or 100 messages. If the guy takes that effort, it probably means he is genuinely interested in becoming a member of the community; but at the same time, it's not an unreasonable demand to get into an exclusive clique. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
-
RandomMonkey wrote:
And our egos are so big that we really care about votes in the SB and lounge?
One look at the Lounge and the SB this morning made me X| . Every post in the Lounge had 5+ votes, but the SB was worse. Almost *every* post in the SB was grayed out. :|
RandomMonkey wrote:
I am tempted to wonder if only the gurus could vote on them
Think of it as being a citizen of country X but not being allowed to vote unless you're 18/whatever years old. :) I merely suggested that we restrict voting privileges to people who'd been around for a significant amount of time. IMO, it's not unreasonable to restrict voting rights till the user has posted, say, 50 or 100 messages. If the guy takes that effort, it probably means he is genuinely interested in becoming a member of the community; but at the same time, it's not an unreasonable demand to get into an exclusive clique. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
...but at the same time, it's not an unreasonable demand to get into an exclusive clique.
I can see it now: "CPians: the Freemasons of Programming!" Let the conspiracy theories begin! :laugh: Debugging - The high art and magic of cussing errors into 'features'
-
Inappropriate because I've been around long enough to know there is a Suggestions forum. But since the Lounge and the SB seem to be the most affected, I thought I'd post here. :) When I logged on this morning, I saw that some cretin has been lynch-voting almost every post in both the Lounge and the SB. Why not restrict voting rights to * only silver members OR * only members who've been around for more than a year OR * only members with 50+ posts or something like that? I'm not saying one of these should be chosen rigidly. We could decide (or leave it to Chris - it's his site, after all) which of these strikes the best balance between preserving the quality of CP and making the site totally unusable to newbies. Criticism to this suggestion welcome. :) Cheers, Vikram.
Google talk: binarybandit
upsdude: when I looked at laurens profile, a couple of gears got stripped in my brain. Michael Martin: Too bad she bats for the other team.
I like all these ideas except that there are so few votes as it is, that it really doesn't matter. I think you have something there with using the operator OR even if you didn't intend it that way. If a user meets any of your criteria above, they can vote.
Microsoft makes Digital Photos fun with Photo Story 3 and its free. | Windows Vista Forums
-
And our egos are so big that we really care about votes in the SB and lounge? I know it is a fun game, but the only votes that I really care about are article votes, as they guide newbies much more than anything in here. You could also take away the penalties for low votes in the lounge (no greying-out, etc), and then there is less incentive for the kiddies to play. Just thought I'd pop it in there. I for one, don't care, as long as the article votes reflect the article's quality, and I am tempted to wonder if only the gurus could vote on them, would that skew the voting? Are you more and more tempted to only vote 1's and 5's the longer you have been a member, and not vote for the intermediary material at all? (ps - I am not exactly a newbie, but my old account would not let me post to the lounge, due to bugs in the scripts. Anyone with apostrophes in their last name probably has the same trouble. My old account was "David O'Neil". That should put to rest any thoughts that I may be playing the anonymous game.) Debugging - The high art and magic of cussing errors into 'features'
RandomMonkey wrote:
but my old account would not let me post to the lounge, due to bugs in the scripts
Can you try again? That bug should have been squashed a while ago. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
RandomMonkey wrote:
but my old account would not let me post to the lounge, due to bugs in the scripts
Can you try again? That bug should have been squashed a while ago. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I tried again (as well as having tried this morning, before posting). For what it's worth, I can reply to topics posted to my articles, just not the lounge. Here's the outcome of my attempt just now, indicating an apostrophe problem: You cannot send messages using this name or email address. You are currently logged in as: David O'Neil someone@somewhere.com You are trying to post as: David O someone@somewhere.com The problem: "David O" has been registered by someone else. You cannot post using a name that someone else has registered... Debugging - The high art and magic of cussing errors into 'features'