|
|
I'm curious what you expect Chris or the team to do. Unfortunately jerks will be jerks - and they are certainly entitled to their opinion, and there is nothing that the CP team can do about that - they certainly can't stop the person for posting their opinion. At least this person provided a reason and didn't just type . in the box.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes sir, you are right. But in the morning when I saw the message was very disappointed , because I have put a lot of effort for this article. but after 7 Hrs of Office work...... its  .
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: At least this person provided a reason and didn't just type . in the box.
|
|
|
|
|
The article is good, but I have to agree with the voter to some extent.
I notice that most of the "Excellent Article" comments come from your countrymen, who are perhaps used to this "Ind-glish" and can see through it, but from an English speaker's perspective, the grammer is atrocious.
Maybe you could get a native to proof read and correct your otherwise excellent article.
|
|
|
|
|
J4amieC wrote: Maybe you could get a native to proof read and correct your otherwise excellent article.
Thanks you so much sir . I will try to improve it . Thank you so much.
|
|
|
|
|
A univoter, as the term is used here, is someone who votes everything they can get their hands on "1" without rhyme or reason.
Your article was voted "1" by someone who was legitimately underwhelmed by your article, which compares very, very well to the 60 others who apparently enjoyed your article. This was not a 'univoter'. This was a person with every right to share their opinion.
I do not want to be harsh but no, I will not "Do the needful" if "the needful" is remove the vote. This is a democratic community and everyone is entitled to their vote.
Please keep some perspective. Your article is an excellent article. It could certainly do with some cleaning up in terms of grammar and punctuation which, for some, is more important than content. However, the vast majority of readers have voted your work a well deserved "excellent", and for this you should be deservedly proud.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much sir. 
|
|
|
|
|
You might consider ignoring the top and bottom say 5% of the votes once there are enough votes that is (say 20). That would counteract the effect of a lone vote; it also might cause more one-votes from the few jerks entering into a conspiracy to have a lasting say, but IMO the net effect would be positive.
If linguistic problems are causing a low vote, would the editor staff step in?
and would you then also keep the vote? does that fit well with the messages (and votes?) being discarded when a new version and/or (not sure) an approval occurs?
FYI: messages being discarded continues to look like a bad idea to me. It discourages people from providing early feedback.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: You might consider ignoring the top and bottom say 5% of the votes
You can Vote to remove message, which will also remove the associated vote. (I think there is some "tipping point" - a minimum number of removal votes.)
Luc Pattyn wrote: If linguistic problems are causing a low vote, would the editor staff step in?
An editor would assist any author who asks for help. If the author sees a lot of "bad English" posts, it's up to the author to be proactive.
Luc Pattyn wrote: messages being discarded continues to look like a bad idea to me
I am (slightly) on the other side of the fence. As I understand it, the idea is to allow authors to post articles, get some feedback, edit their articles, and then have it approved for public viewing. Unfortunately, some authors neglect the "edit" phase, and so the "early" comments are still valid when the article makes its appearance.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans Dietrich wrote: You can Vote to remove message, which...
Sure, but that requires a positive action from several people who may already have read the article and are not going to read it again. Whereas an automated system would just spot the odd vote and disregard it, no more action required.
Hans Dietrich wrote: (slightly) on the other side of the fence.
Articles have versions now, why can't the messages remain with the version they belonged too?
That would illustrate how the author did or did not follow through. And IMO the votes should remain effective, i.e. only the message poster can modify his vote, no automatic removal (unless the message gets flagged by the "Vote for removal..." button).
I would accept an e-mail notification when an article I voted for and commented on gets a new version.
And for sure the next thing I'll want is a button to move my message from an older to a newer version of the article, in case I think it still applies.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Articles have versions now, why can't the messages remain with the version they belonged too?
Because authors would edit their article every single time they got a '1' vote just to try and keep all 5's.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like a lot of work just to keep the old ego inflated.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Chris,
you misunderstood me. This is what I mean:
- when a new version of an article gets published keep the existing messages with the version they
apply to; it often does not make sense to read a comment that applies to an older version, so it
should not be visible by default on the newer version;
- keep summing the votes independent of the versions; every vote was earned at some point in time,
publishing a newer and better version does not change the vote situation;
- however offer two new things to the authors of the messages:
1. they can subscribe and get an e-mail that the article they commented and voted on has changed;
2. they get a button to move their message forward to the new version of the article, and of
course they can edit the text and change their vote.
In summary: messages and votes remain valid; comment authors get signaled and can easily adapt their
comment.
And of course, don't let the article approval change a single thing in the messages and the votes;
all that has been said and voted remains valid, approval should not be the start of a second life.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get
- use the code block button (PRE tags) to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Abhijit,
Please read this entire post - I am not trying to flame you.
When I first read your post, I thought to myself, "Oh-oh. Here's someone who has just posted his first article, and got a 1 vote." I was surprised when I discovered you have actually written many articles, because by now you should understand that there will always be people here on CP that (1) vote 1 because they are immature idiots, or (2) vote 1 because they don't like your article, which is indistinguishable from (1).
In the case of the single 1 vote you received, the 1-voter actually told you why he was voting 1. Whether or not you agree with the reasons he gave, let's examine them:
Reason #1: Poor English
This reason is self-explanatory, but is it true? In examining your article, I found the following spelling mistakes:
- clealy
- serilize
- explianed
- handl
- onthe
- aaccount
- asign
- cals
I also noticed that you tended to put a space before periods and commas. This is certainly not standard English usage, and is distracting and reduces overall readability - especially when the comma or period gets wrapped to the next line.
Finally, some of the grammar you use is a bit awkward - understandable, but awkward. Getting someone to proof-read your article will easily remedy this.
My opinion: This reason has some merit.
Reason #2: Too simplistic
I'm not sure exactly what the 1-voter meant by this, but let's assume that he meant that your article was too basic, and that he thought it was going to be discussing more advanced topics. You refer in the Introduction to "Beginner's Guide series". This certainly suggests that the article is at the beginner level, although you don't really say that in so many words. In any case, a quick scan of the article would show that it is an introduction, not an in-depth look.
My opinion: This reason is probably not justified, although I think you could make the article level clearer (in both the Introduction and the description).
Reason #3: Information copied from some beginner textbook
My opinion: Since the 1-voter doesn't give any specifics, I don't think this reason has any merit. As a suggestion, I would recommend moving the 3 references you give closer to the relevant text, and also adding any other "for additional reading" links that you have. (Since this is a beginner article, I would assume people are reading it to learn more.)
Summary: In my opinion, the 1 vote was not justified. However, because you were upset at the 1 vote itself, you failed to take advantage of the opportunity it gave you. What do I mean by that? Here's what I would have done:
- Ask someone who really knows English well to read the article and make suggestions. If you personally don't know anyone like that, ask Chris or one of the CP editors for help.
- Take a step back, ask yourself, Who is my audience? Have I communicated that clearly?
- Beef up the references.
Final suggestion: Drink at least one cup of coffee after reading a post like that of the 1-voter. Treat each and every point completely seriously. If there's any merit at all, say thanks. If not, say that you don't agree. Posting angry responses might be satisfying, but don't do it. Instead, use the 1-voter's comments to improve your article.
I hope you will continue to write excellent articles like this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Hans,
Thanks you so much for your valuable suggestion. I should definitely keep it in mind. Thank you so much.
Hats-Off to all of you.![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Move along, nothing to see...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I've just tried accessing the list of my articles (err... article) from the My Articles link and it shows me an empty list (My Articles[^]). The same thing happens if I go into my profile page and click the 'Articles Submitted' link, presumably because they are both for the same URL.
My profile does show me as having written one article, which is correct, and the auther field on the article itself is correct.
If it's important, I'm running IE 7 under Windows Vista.
Tony
Edit : Also, I've tried looking at an other person's Articles list and it appears to work.
modified on Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on it
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Tony,
The articles do appear now.
Sorry it took that long.
Sincerely,
Elina
Life is great!!!
Enjoy every moment of it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is set back to pending approval
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
Lead Technical Editor
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
While I've got your attention, Chris...
I need to write an installer, but I don't know what to use. This question comes up about once a month in the lounge. Rather than repeat this, could you set up an open article where people can share their experiences and opinions?
I know I could start this myself, but then it would be tied to my account, which doesn't seem right.
We could have articles for installers, source control, virtualisation, help compilers - all the supplemental tools that help developers. Maybe even a link to an index on the homepage?
Nick
----------------------------------
Be excellent to each other
|
|
|
|
|
Give me a couple of days. I have exactly what you are after in the works.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
.
