|
I agree. A post shouldn't be deleted. EVER. All the text should be removed and replaced with a "Post Removed" message.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
Nobody likes jerks. [espeir]
Hey, I am part of a special bread, we are called smart people [Captain See Sharp]
The zen of the soapbox is hard to attain...[Jörgen Sigvardsson]
I wish I could remember what it was like to only have a short term memory.[David Kentley]
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw a terrific new article where one of the raters gave him a "1" and left no message. I strongly think we should REQUIRE a message or comment from anyone who gives an article a low rating. Here's the article I'm talking about - this is VERY GOOD:
http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/IconLib.asp
I've seen this kind of thing at other sites where the rater simply uses a swear word as a comment, or they make some kind of stupid statement that has nothing to do with the article (C# sucks, Bill Gates is the devil, etc).
If an author sees that he got a low rating from one of these bozos, that rating should be thrown out! I'd be willing to accept the rating of any poster who at least has the courtesy of posting some kind of comment relating to the article, but idiots who clutter our bandwidth with pure "noise" need to be shown to the door!
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Engler wrote: I strongly think we should REQUIRE a message or comment from anyone who gives an article a low rating.
It won't work. The voter would just put junk into the box. The best thing to do is ignore the low votes. A very good article will always end up with a good score and constructive feedback in the articles message board.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote: The voter would just put junk into the box
I understand and that's my point: if they put junk in the box their vote shouldn't count. Anyone who hasn't really read an article and thought about it at least a little bit shouldn't be voting in the first place. I'd let the article authors submit those "questionable" entries for review, and a third person could take a quick look and kill the vote of someone like this.
This is one of the best developer sites on the internet (in my mind second only to MSDN), but there's a certain number of jerks who give artificially low ratings and post stupid messages that put off a lot of potential article authors.
If I want to give a guy a "1", I think I owe it to him to give a little constructive critism, or at least to point out what I think is wrong with the article. That helps us all in the long run because his next article might be much better. But if I give him a "hit and run" rating of "1", he's not going to learn anything from it.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be good if the Mobile Dev forum was visible on the pulldown menu on the front page of CP. I think a lot of people might not realize it exists since it is not available from the front page.
-- Tom
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed some good articles in the String[^] section being unedited for more than a year. Is it a general policy to leave them unedited, or authors ask for it, or this section is simply low on the editors' priority list?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the answer was quick and effective.  Thanks, Smitha.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps it's time to put the soapbox on hiatus? Not that I care much about all the retarded stuff that makes it in there every once in a while, but I have a feeling that the soapbox is CP's biggest sun spot (more like an eclipse if that's the first forum visit on CP).
--
For proper viewing, take red pill now
|
|
|
|
|
The soapbox is a sewer, BUT if you close it people will go back to tossing thier chamber pots out the window and you'll have filth all over the street instead.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose you're right.
--
When you see the robot, drink!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sick of people crying and calling for the Soapbox to be shut down. Firstly, if you don't like it, don't go there; simple. Secondly, have a look at the post count; clearly many people like it, I’m one of them. Thirdly, all threads have a percentage of drivel. In summary, my opinion is that the Soapbox should be left as is.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
It's not my eyes I'm worried about. I don't care much for the bullshit either. I enjoy reading it every now and then, and contribute some of my own. What I do care about is the Score 1.0-type of messages (the latest being Mohammad Abdul-whatever). I'm just thinking that perhaps new people will see those kinds of messages, and think "What the hell is this place?". Stuff like that could taint CP, which is not so good in my opinion.
--
Presented in doublevision (where drunk)
|
|
|
|
|
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote: It's not my eyes I'm worried about. I don't care much for the bullsh*t either. I enjoy reading it every now and then, and contribute some of my own. What I do care about is the Score 1.0-type of messages (the latest being Mohammad Abdul-whatever). I'm just thinking that perhaps new people will see those kinds of messages, and think "What the hell is this place?". Stuff like that could taint CP, which is not so good in my opinion.
If the SoapBox didn't exists, our resident trolls would just pollute the other message boards. A litle more discipline from some posters so that they ignored the trolls rather than replying would be better. Of course, some times we just get trolls baiting each other.
Some harsher moderation would be better.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote: Some harsher moderation would be better.
Agreed. I wonder however how it's supposed to work? As it is now, some elect have the power to move threads. Some threads belong in the soapbox, while others don't belong anywhere on the site in my opinion.
Insolvable problems. I hate those. 
--
Verletzen zerfetzen zersetzen zerstören
Doch es darf nicht mir gehören
Ich muss zerstören
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather have all the crap there where I can easily ignore it, than spilling over into the Lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
You're right.
--
Fun for the whole family - except grandma and grandpa
|
|
|
|
|
You miss a lot of my best stuff if you don't monitor the soapbox.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
This thread belongs in the SOAPBOX you idiot! 
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Nah, I wanted thoughtful and non-partisan responses. 
--
Filmed on Location
|
|
|
|
|
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote: I wanted thoughtful and non-partisan responses
Oh, so Marxism.
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention Atheist. But then again, Atheism is just another synonym for Marxism. 
--
This episode performed entirely by sock puppets
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah and don't forget people that eat Captain Crunch cereal... pukes!
led mike
|
|
|
|
|
Why IP address? I am behind a firewall with few more people and only of us can vote a message.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
|
|
|
|
|
Because some moron (Kyle, aka pumpkinhead, aka score1.0, etc) created several dozen accounts to use in mass one voting abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
If only he limited his abuse to voting...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
