WOW !!!! Everything is fine now!!! Thank you very much!!!!

Eric Ouellet

You are right. Just to let you know... I just retry (2022-11-07 12:19 EST) and it is still there?

Eric Ouellet

I wonder why you don't fix the bug I have for years now. I always have a notification about "We need your permission to email you (It's a CASL thing...)" for many years now. If I click on it, it says: "Why aren't I getting newsletters anymore? Because of the Canadian Government. Sorry. It looks like you've already given us consent to send you emails. You're a saint." I already asked multiples times to fix that bug but nothing happen. Is there any programmers working on the website? Why don't you just fixit? It shouldn't be so hard, so why just fix it?

Eric Ouellet

Can you email me, I will give you my password and you will see what I'm talking about. Change my email for yours in my account and create notifications. Also see the notification that's always there about CASL things...

Eric Ouellet

I still don't receive any notification email and I still have the messge "We need your permission to email you (it's a CASL thing...)". It's really sad. I can't reply to peoples in a reasonable delay due this bug. Why do I have this behavior? Why can't you fix it?

Eric Ouellet

Every thing seems to be perfect. It is exactly as expected plus I also have "Replies to Posts" selected. IT really seems to be a bug somewhere. I changed my email and still don't receive anything. ALSO: I still have the notification which I cannot remove : "We need your permission to ... CASL thing..." Could you fix that?

Eric Ouellet

Hi, I do not receive any notification email for my articles althouh I suppose to. Also, I always have a notification warning about: "We need your permission to email you (It's a CASL thing...). You have my permission now. I want to receive notifications about any interractions on my articles. Thanks, Eric

Eric Ouellet

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

Thanks for having taken the time to answer me. I appreciate.

Have you ever written an article? A vote of 2 hurt me more than a kick in my butt. My code is node perfect. Some could say it should have been separated into many files, other could say that it requires region but it does what it should do and do it well. It never deserved a 2. Having such people with such behavior just prevent people like me to publish here or simply stop to take time to publish at all. Our rewards, is votes. Download and views are find but votes is almost everything!!!

No. Not at all. Don't turn my discussion as a joke. I'm serious. The best way to manage a website is to program it to be auto managed by its member. But you have to put system of reward/awards and rules that would make users being able to manage it them self according to their trustfulness.

Yes, you are right, it is not simple. But I think they need to do something. Not necessarily my idea but anything to minimize bad behaviors.

Hi Chris, I don't understand how you can say it is a wrong idea because it is the main reason why StackOverflow works so well. Also statistics become relevant after times, more times = better stats. And Stats could be use to improve them self. I highly think that is the way to go to improve the quality and usability of this website. My article about WrapPanelFill is fine and could be really useful to many people, i'm sure. But a stupid asshole 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 personally never take a look at article with evaluation of 3 because I think it is probably not valuable. There should be a way to prevent that to happen, or at least to minimize it to a minimum.

Yes it would be true. To have lots of point, you need to be serious and publish. It is when you have published once that you really understand the value of each vote.

Thanks!

Also, there is a really effective way to really improve quality of vote (have significant evaluation of articles) and reduce user nonsensical comment. Suggestion 2: If the system force comment with vote, track a vote with its comment and the system enable people to vote up or down comments. Then comment quality will improve and their value become more relevant - comment quality related to a vote could be used to calculate the real vote effect. That way the system auto adjust itself and any votes become a lots more relevant and value of the overall website increase by the same way. ;)

What I understand from your comment, is that forcing comment to any kind of vote would help improve the quality of the value of votes. It would inevitably also reduce the number of vote but if it is for more significant evaluations, I think it would just give more value to my proposition to put back a system where comments are necessary to vote (at least negative but also for positive). Thanks, Eric

Thanks Sasha for the information. But there is 3 important benefits to forcing people to do so for vote for 1-3 stars: - First the person has to identify itself. It should help reduce bad vote without an appropriate reason. Perhaps just a bit, I don't know, but it would help reduce inappropriate down vote. - Second. It would give author an idea of the reason, although it is a silly one, it give him helpful feedback. - Third. A reply from the author to a bad evaluation comment would give him the opportunity to answer the down voter which would also give valuable information to him and other readers too. I think it was a mistake to remove that feature. :((

Hi, I just wrote and publish a tips/trick. It has been voted 2 and 4. It is not an extraordinary tips. But it does what it should and does it well, at least, to my point of view. I took the time to write a sample and share it to help people. Everybody has the right to vote to their feelings, that's fine. But I wonder if it would not be a good idea to force people to write at least one line comment (minimum of some characters) that would explain their choice when they vote 1,2 or 3 stars? That way it would be easier for the writer to improve either its article, its code or at least understand the decision of the person. Stars are the only rewards to writers. A bad evaluation is hard to receive but it could, at least, be really useful if it come with comments. Could it be a good idea to force people that vote 1-3 stars to write a little comment? Would it be just a minimum of respect for the author?

This code project article: A Beginners Guide to Bitmaps[^] Seems to have copied information from: http://paulbourke.net/dataformats/bitmaps/[^] I haven't seen the reference of it. I wonder if it is fair? Eric