Evaluation
-
SO works well because they have dedicated moderators who close poor questions with almost zero tolerance.
Eric Ouellet wrote:
Also statistics become relevant after times, more times = better stats
Not if the input is biased, as it was. More time = more biased results = worse stats. Believe me: we tried it. For a long time. It was a hard, hard decision to turn off comment-on-vote but it wasn't done on a whim.
Eric Ouellet wrote:
But a stupid a**hole voted 2 for it without any comment and he was the second to vote. Result is that the article is now evaluated to 3. I
Ans so your article needs time. More time with unbiased results means a more accurate vote for your article (And it seems your articles are now over 4.8 average - so well done!)
Eric Ouellet wrote:
There should be a way to prevent that to happen, or at least to minimize it to a minimum.
Take a look at the Code Project Rating and Reputation FAQ[^]
cheers Chris Maunder
Thanks for having taken the time to answer me. I appreciate.
-
SO works well because they have dedicated moderators who close poor questions with almost zero tolerance.
Eric Ouellet wrote:
Also statistics become relevant after times, more times = better stats
Not if the input is biased, as it was. More time = more biased results = worse stats. Believe me: we tried it. For a long time. It was a hard, hard decision to turn off comment-on-vote but it wasn't done on a whim.
Eric Ouellet wrote:
But a stupid a**hole voted 2 for it without any comment and he was the second to vote. Result is that the article is now evaluated to 3. I
Ans so your article needs time. More time with unbiased results means a more accurate vote for your article (And it seems your articles are now over 4.8 average - so well done!)
Eric Ouellet wrote:
There should be a way to prevent that to happen, or at least to minimize it to a minimum.
Take a look at the Code Project Rating and Reputation FAQ[^]
cheers Chris Maunder
Hi talked to 3 persons about what happen to my tips. They all agree with me on 4 points: - Peoples voting 1,2 or 3 should leave comment (with a minimum of character length) in order to ensure to give feedback to the author in order to let him know the reason and give him the opportunity to improve its article. - Due to anonymous nature of voting (now without comment) clearly make it easier to vote anything. - A system that let vote down so easily let room for possibility to discredit good article in its early life and lead to improper perception of usefulness. - Peoples that receive bad vote will stop writing. In general, it is fine. But a good potential writer fooled by wrong vote in its first articles could decide to stop writing and it could lead to many good articles being lost (if wrongly evaluated by some users). Although there is probably good reasons to not force people to comment when voting, you absolutely not convinced me that it is reasonable to let people vote down without any comment. I definitively find that removing this restriction is a very hard to understand decision. Thanks, Eric