|
Possibly a database timeout.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, I see... I tried several time that day, but now it's ok 
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus
|
|
|
|
|
This seems to be happening to my posts yesterday and today... do tell - whats happening 
Posted today[^]
|
|
|
|
|
In the past few weeks there seems to be large increase in poor articles - here is another one: Writing Dlls in C,C++.
My suggestion is this: put "new" articles (submitted via Submission Wizard) in queue of 2 or 3 volunteer editors, who will rate strictly on its merit - not format, punctuation or anything else. The volunteer editors cannot edit the article, only rate it. An article is considered "new" if submitted by someone with fewer than 5 "acceptable" articles. An article is considered to be "acceptable" if it has a rating of higher than 2. If the average of the volunteer editors' votes is greater than 2, the article will be posted; if not, the editors' comments will be sent to the poster, to let him know why it was not posted. Once a member has posted 5 "acceptable" articles, his articles will be posted directly, without being put in queue. Preferably, the volunteer editor herself/himself should have posted at least one article in the category of the submitted article.
I think this probation period will allow CP community to influence quality of articles in positive way, by giving direct feedback to authors, without harshness of simply voting article into purgatory.
|
|
|
|
|
We have way to many variations on the same idea... it's like its linux.
|
|
|
|
|
Bad articles will be voted down *by the community* and automatically sent to the Purgatory.
so, no biggies.
|
|
|
|
|
Each article as a "Broken Article" link at the top that allows you to report the article. Report the bad ones and we'll take the appropriate steps.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
One persons idea of a good article may be anothers idea of a bad one. Leave the voting to the people who want to read them, and only those people. Forcing 'volunteers' to give a score is unfair. What if that volunteer him/herself wrote an article on the same topic, only this one is better??? What if the volunteer doesn't agree with the article???
On the subject of articles and votes. I tend to stay away from the article with low votes, but sometimes only 2 or 3 people have voted. This doesn't really compare to an article with 50 or so votes. The current scheme is to show a percentage for the score, it would be nice to also see how many people have voted. When I say this, I realise within the article itself this information is available, but in the article listings it is not. I would be more willing to read articles with low scores if the number of scorers was also low.
----
Oops, sorry I replied to the wrong person. 
|
|
|
|
|
This guy[^] (at the time of this post) has somehow attained "gold" status with only 53 posts and 0 articles.
|
|
|
|
|
Member since Thursday 6th July, 2000
(6 years, 7 months)
1-4 articles posted = Bronze. 5-14 articles = Silver. 15-24 articles = Gold. 25+ articles = Platinum. Each 500 messages posted adds one level, and if a user has posted a message then each year of membership adds 1 level. Bonus levels not valid for Gold members. Bronze is awarded at the beginning of the first 500 messages posted instead of the end.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it was just his quest to prove discredit the site which caused him to miss that little bit of text....
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Member since Thursday 6th July, 2000 (6 years, 7 months)
Sorry, I was confusing "Chris-Kaiser" with "Chris S Kaiser" with whom I've communicated before. I strongly suspect these are one and the same person.
And it still seems a bit odd for a "gold" status member to make all of his 53 contributions - posts only - in just the most recent month of his 6 years and 7 months with the group.
|
|
|
|
|
Get off of it Negus. Now you're just pissing me off.
It is the same person. I am Chris S Kaiser and Chris-Kaiser. I revived an account I had at a former company. Why not reflect my true status as having been here since the beginning? And if you viewed the blog in the profile which you surely visited you'd see that I mention that very thing.
Why don't you stop pissing on everything and trying to play site police?
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris-Kaiser wrote: Get off of it Negus. Now you're just pissing me off.
Simmer down, friend. There's nothing personal going on here.
Chris-Kaiser wrote: It is the same person. I am Chris S Kaiser and Chris-Kaiser. I revived an account I had at a former company. Why not reflect my true status as having been here since the beginning?
My difficulties in this matter were two. First, that "gold" status - with the additional voting authority that comes with it - could be granted to someone merely because of the passage of time. At first I thought it was a bug. But then it was pointed out that this is how the system is programmed. You may (or may not) deserve the status; but that's not the point. Secondly, a single member with two (or more) accounts throws off the member count which advertisers (like us) expect to be reasonably accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but then Platinum cannot be earned though time, it is earned only through participation. This is why the plats get to through their weight around.
The Grand Negus wrote: which advertisers (like us)
Well I am glad you have classified yourself.
Brad
Australian
- Christian Graus on "Best books for VBscript"
A big thick one, so you can whack yourself on the head with it.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: Simmer down, friend. There's nothing personal going on here.
Well, I think its personal for you against CP.
The Grand Negus wrote: First, that "gold" status - with the additional voting authority that comes with it - could be granted to someone merely because of the passage of time.
That's how it is. If you've been a member for a while, you get credit for it. But only up to a point. As mentioned by Brad, platinum is the earned status irrespetive of time, or messages posted.
The Grand Negus wrote: econdly, a single member with two (or more) accounts throws off the member count which advertisers (like us) expect to be reasonably accurate.
Why not? How many forums control the account number? How do you enforce this? Not by IP, dhcp kinda kills that. Its unenforceable. You can have multiple Yahoo accounts. And they make their money from advertising as well. This isn't unique.
Also, did you renew your advertising then? If not, then you're not an advertiser. You were an advertiser. But thanks for clarifying that you are not a member of the community but an advertiser of a product.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris-Kaiser wrote: you are not a member of the community
Oh, but I am. Several of those 3,811,162 are me. Really.
|
|
|
|
|
Right, I was being facetious.
Advertising doesn't disqualify membership.
But I see as a member you take advantage of the feature while objecting to it as an advertiser, so you are part of the problem you object to.
This statement was never false.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris-Kaiser wrote: But I see as a member you take advantage of the feature while objecting to it as an advertiser, so you are part of the problem you object to.
Mainly because there's no "delete" button (as far as I can tell). Point me to the right spot and I'll delete my redundant accounts today.
|
|
|
|
|
hey, you knowhow to do it, because you already remove that idiotic "The Osmosian Order" member several months ago 
|
|
|
|
|
toxcct wrote: hey, you know how...
I'd reply, but it appears you've fallen asleep.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're expecting user counts to be anywhere near accurate on any publicly accessible board, you're pretty clueless. I don't know of any site admin that has the time to vet almost 4 million accounts to make sure there's no multi-account users.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: If you're expecting user counts to be anywhere near accurate on any publicly accessible board, you're pretty clueless. I don't know of any site admin that has the time to vet almost 4 million accounts to make sure there's no multi-account users.
Understood. But if everyone knows the thing is off - way off - what's the point of "bragging" about it?
|
|
|
|
|
stop drooling honorable members with such post you're the only one to excrete 
|
|
|
|
|
Have I offended you in some personal way? It seems the first thing you do when you get here each day is locate all of my posts and vote them down - regardless of the content. Exactly what's the problem, and how can we fix it?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
