Someone at your IP address has already voted for this message.
-
J4amieC wrote:
Yes, but a necessary evil to stop the kiddies abusing the system.
Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
-Prakash
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
Yeah, if Smitha votes on a message, then I can't. Pity really. Maybe in CP v2 they'll fix this problem.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Yes I perfectly understand your point, but when i could not vote on some post because someone else from 2000+ employees behind the company proxy voted it, then it really sucks.
Yeah, if Smitha votes on a message, then I can't. Pity really. Maybe in CP v2 they'll fix this problem.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system. Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system. Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris, Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Chris Maunder wrote:
So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris, Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue. Most kidiot's won't be willing to wait years to pull their pranks, and if the requirement is that both accounts are really long term it'd solve the problem of someone stuffing a ballot by creating a new account and voting with it before the old one.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue. Most kidiot's won't be willing to wait years to pull their pranks, and if the requirement is that both accounts are really long term it'd solve the problem of someone stuffing a ballot by creating a new account and voting with it before the old one.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
dan neely wrote:
That's the first reasonable sounding workaround I've seen for this issue.
Thank you :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Chris Maunder wrote:
So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris, Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)That's an excellent idea. May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
-
It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system. Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address,
Well i have not tried it, but this means that I can vote on a post or a article more than one time, one from my office pc and other from home pc and few more times if I use other ISPs, i have about 3 ISPs at home.
-Prakash
-
That's an excellent idea. May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
But in this case, a poster with query got solved by someone, can not vote to reply he statisfied with. Obviously, he would/not be a valid member to vote. There are many users, who post only when they have queries. And they hardly got to this figure.
Prasad Notifier using ATL | Operator new[],delete[][^]
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address,
Well i have not tried it, but this means that I can vote on a post or a article more than one time, one from my office pc and other from home pc and few more times if I use other ISPs, i have about 3 ISPs at home.
-Prakash
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Well i have not tried it, but this means that I can vote on a post or a article more than one time, one from my office pc and other from home pc and few more times if I use other ISPs, i have about 3 ISPs at home.
You can, if you have multiple accounts.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
That's an excellent idea. May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
-
That's an excellent idea. May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
May be the voting should be only available to Bronze and above members. So fake accounts have to have atleast 500 messages before they can vote.
This will ensure that you will see 500 crap posts all over CP.
-Prakash
-
Mr.Prakash wrote:
Well i have not tried it, but this means that I can vote on a post or a article more than one time, one from my office pc and other from home pc and few more times if I use other ISPs, i have about 3 ISPs at home.
You can, if you have multiple accounts.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
You can, if you have multiple accounts.
Is that your permission? OK :-D
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
You can, if you have multiple accounts.
Is that your permission? OK :-D
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
dnh wrote:
Is that your permission?
You need CM's and DC's permission - not mine :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
Chris Maunder wrote:
So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
Hey Chris, Yes, I understand the reasoning behind this. But couldn't you make it easier for regular trusted members (say members who've been active for at least 3 years) by allowing a flag to be set that will allow them to vote (even if someone from the same IP has voted already on the same post)? Could you perhaps put that into a low-priority todo list :-)
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)or create a link where a user can ask for voting permission and moderators can accept or deny his request according to his repo on boards the link is only available only the user passes certain criteria (like should be a gold member or posted at least some minimum number of messages / articles :)
-
It's not a problem that can be fixed. The only way of identifying someone on the internet is by IP address, so that's the only thing we can check to ensure people aren't abusing the system. Voting is meant to provide an overall feel for the value of a post or article. If some members are unable to vote then that's a pity, but there are millions of others who can. So while it may be frustrating it's still better than making it easier for vote stacking to occur.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Can we stipulate that voting has to go through a mandatory logon process to restrict only registered members can exercise their voting privileges. Quite similar to our Indian elections where one photo identity is mandatory at Polling Booths. ;P
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
-
Can we stipulate that voting has to go through a mandatory logon process to restrict only registered members can exercise their voting privileges. Quite similar to our Indian elections where one photo identity is mandatory at Polling Booths. ;P
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips