|
Right, I overlooked that one. It makes a big difference indeed.
IMO it is not good; either the acceptance is by the enquirer himself (I would hope so), then that isn't worth more than a single up-vote (well, I'm willing to allow for some extra weight, I'd say depending on the enquirer's own authority); or it is automatic, i.e. by a sufficient number of others having up-voted, then it has been rewarded already, no need for a bonus.
And then there are people who would like to prevent edits/comments/extra votes on answers that have been accepted, so abuse would become irreparable?
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Debator points are of dubious value
I disagree. One of the main reasons I am a member of CP is because of the discussions in the Lounge. It is the same for a lot of members. If somebody contributes to the Lounge, they are contributing to a lot of member's ongoing interest. That seems like it's worth something.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind the Lounge points, I do mind two completely unrelated kinds of activities being combined into a single category, as I explained.
And I don't mind them being part of the total, however, personally, I would prefer there were a relative limit, say capping real Debator points to 50% of total (which means you need to gain other points too if you want your total to go up by debating). IMO we don't need two or more backroom people to potentially amass millions of points without doing anything useful on the site (I am assuming points can be earned in backrooms, it has changed a few times, I don't know how it is now, I don't go there).
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: we don't need two or more backroom people to potentially amass millions of points without doing anything useful on the site
Nonsense! Their posting in the Lounge (maybe not so much the backroom/soapbox, as those are not as popular) attracts other members (like me) who do contribute to places other than the Lounge. They are like the entertainers of Vegas that keep the real contributers (the tourists, with all their money) coming back for more.
|
|
|
|
|
I find that statement undeserving to the likes of, say, Shog or Paul Watson - two early and, to me, extremely valueable and loved members who have provided some content in the form of articles and answers, but whose true value to our community, and the very reason I implemented Debator points, was purely their presence, their discussions, their outlooks, comments and voice.
Not everyone has to post an article or answer a message to contribute to the Site.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, I was wrong. I don't know the people you mention, but I can see there's many ways of contributing, all have merit. I still don't feel completely OK with the possibility of someone achieving top reputation without technical contribution though, however I think I'll get over that too.
I maintain you're mixing two things in Debator points, half of mine are Lounge-based and I'm OK with them; the other half IMO should have been Authority as they are really technical replies in programming forum discussions, part of them at a time message type was still irrelevant; later there has been a period I turned all answers to "General" to get a 1-to-5 vote rather than good/bad votes; I now try and remember to change the type to "Answer" whenever applicable!
BTW: I find "post comment yields Participant points" pretty inconsistent. If you look at the short list of ways to get participant points, posting comments is the odd one out.
|
|
|
|
|
This again is a case of having a system in place that requires too much user intervention. Ultimately, all posts in the forums should be marked question or answer so we can allocate points properly, and we could then add a further type "technical disucssion" which would go onto "expert" points since the more you discuss the more, one hopes, you become an expert.
However, this is an issue with the Forum system in that it only categorises first posts and replies to questions automatically.
I guess an option is that every contribution to a thread by a member other than the original question poster can be considered a technical posting in answer to the poster's original question (ie an answer, or progression towards an answer). Posts contributed by the original poster could be considered as either debator points or could continue to acrue question points. On one hand this encourages more clarification from the poster. On the other, "Thank you" posts cause a problem.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the enquirer is getting many votes except for his original post, so I care less about the message type assigned to his posts. And I would assume if there is a thank you, it would be his.
The repliers are the ones missing out on Authority points, so the first big improvement could be this: any reply to a message by the original enquirer is an answer by default. When two repliers start a discussion amongst themselves, they would still be debators by default.
So
A
B*
A
C*
A
B*
E
B
D*
A
D*
A
would have all the (*) as default answers as they are replies to A.
If you want to improve the enquirer situation too, it could be:
any message by the original poster is a question unless it is the last one in a chain (which is either an unanswered follow-up question or a thank you).
The problem here is the qualification depends on having child messages, so it changes after being published; you may not be fond of this.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why you guys haven't noticed that I said that in order for Q/A to replace the forums, it would have to be re-engineered. I only mentioned a few things in what I assume will be a LONG list of things that have to be done to effect that kind of change.
I don't see how the points system as it exists in the forums isn't viable for Q/A which (after being re-engineered) would be pretty much the same thing, only more usable.
Let me do a mock-up of what I'm evidently unsuccessfully trying to convey, so you can see what I have in mind. I have something slightly more pressing to do first, but a little later today...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I'm not saying anyone is abusing the system to do this, but we know there are some who have a number of "shell" identities just to up vote themselves / their friends.
I believe that every time Chris investigated an alleged case of sockpuppeterty in voting he found that the accuser was wrong. We just have a collective of independent idiots.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
The idea of Quick Answers was to have a focus on the question, not the discussion. My hope was that questions and answers, possibly in parallel, would be edited and refined in order to best convey what was being asked and what the answer is.
So.
0) Answers should be answers. A page hosting a question should have the question at the top and a list of answers ranked by usefulness. Discussions on the question, or discussions on each answer, should be done via the comments system, and it's this comment system that I would like to have threaded, but not the answers themselves.
1) Users can still edit stuff so if they can't delete they will just edit with extreme prejudice.
2) In theory every answer is potentially "the" answer. What we've been thinking about doing is removing the entire "Accept Answer" functionality and just make it so that anything with a vote of 5 is an acceptable answer.
3,4) There is more than one way to skin a cat and so restricting to a single answer would cripple the system
5-6) See 1
7) What's the motivation here? We have a system that allows top members to edit/delete/merge tags and so I encourage the community to add take, and encourage top members to organise those tags.
The things I like about QA:
- There's a single view model (equivalent to ThreadView in forums) which means when you click on a link from Google you get just the question and answer. It's great for those outside the site searching for answers. Forums do not do this as well by the nature of the default view (you get lots of other discussions on the same page)
- There is a focus on getting answers and it's visually simple to see the best answer to go with the question. Forums definitely do not allow this, apart from seeing "red" threads". This can be improved in forums.
- There's a single firehose of questions yet it's simple to dive into a single topic. This too can be added to forums.
Things I like about Forums:
- Way faster to go through lots of messages (though QA has the Next/Prev buttons which help a lot)
- You get to have rambling discussions. I like rambling discussions. Those stressed out looking for an answers, NOW, don't always  We can add threading to comments to provide this.
- simpler UI for answering / editing than forums
- Each forum is it's own "room" so to speak. Experts will hang out in their room of choice, instead of hanging out setting their filters of choice (preset filters are something we can add to QA, though)
My ultimate desire is to combine the systems in a way that provides the best of both without taking away anything that either requires on their own. I would never remove the forums, not now that I've been able to see both in action.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: My ultimate desire is to combine the sy
There you go. Truncated there! That's just what I was posting below about 
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - that's weird. I'll see what's happening.
Found the issue. Updating soon. All content is still there - it's just not it wasn't being displayed properly.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
modified on Monday, December 20, 2010 1:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
I understand what the intent was, but everyone here can see that what you intended and what's been happening ain't exactly similar. The problem is that no matter how much you try to point someone in the proper direction on a multinational site like this, the users - for the most part - do NOT pay attention, or they simply don't see the world like we do.
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. So what are your thoughts on my responses?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 0) Answers should be answers. A page hosting a question should have the question at the top and a list of answers ranked by usefulness. Discussions on the question, or discussions on each answer, should be done via the comments system, and it's this comment system that I would like to have threaded, but not the answers themselves.
I agree - answers are answers. But the comments should also allow code blocks ,pre blocks, and other editing features we have in the answers. The comments should also allow for threaded discussion of the answer in question. That's what I meant by making the questions threaded.
Chris Maunder wrote: 1) Users can still edit stuff so if they can't delete they will just edit with extreme prejudice.
But I don't think people should be able edit other people's answers, and only certain people (with the appropriate rep level) should be allowed to edit questions. The same goes for deletion. If an answer or comment get the right kind of votes, it gets deleted.
Chris Maunder wrote: 2) In theory every answer is potentially "the" answer. What we've been thinking about doing is removing the entire "Accept Answer" functionality and just make it so that anything with a vote of 5 is an acceptable answer.
I don't agree with that. I think the "propose as answer" is more fair to the guy that asked the question. That way, the guy can get messages saying someone proposed an answer as "the" answer and take action (or not). The blue coloration would allow an indication at the question list page that an answer has been proposed as "the" answer.
I have to post the reply in several parts due to CPs current propensity for truncating long messages (and I have to go to work).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: There is more than one way to skin a cat and so restricting to a single answer would cripple the system
I'm not saying restrict the system to a single answer. I'm saying restrict it to a single "the" answer, but allow one or more "proposed as" answers. The problem I see right now is that multiple answers are being marked as "the" answer, and many times, this is regardless of the actual content of the answer. Another thing that should be allowed is for the question poster to be able to reject proposed answers (mark them as "not the answer", and this would only apply to answers that are "proposed").
Chris Maunder wrote: 7) What's the motivation here? We have a system that allows top members to edit/delete/merge tags and so I encourage the community to add take, and encourage top members to organise those tags.
This goes hand-in-hand with separating "offical" tags (added by CP management) from unofficial (user-added) tags, like "GimmeCode", "Homework", or "ImaRetard".
My entire point here is that if the Question/Answer section is reengineered (merging the best of both Q/A and forums), we can do away with the programming forums altogether. The reason I'm suggesting it is because the site isn't being used as you envisioned, and no amount of site revamping outside of the Q/A ecosystem is going to resolve the issue (that I can see, at least).
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"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." - J. Jystad, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
This question has some strange formatting. Rather than the question extending to the right of the page (which I think was resolve recently), the widgets on this page seemed to have moved left to cover the question up.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like fixed.
Some recent change, based on which lots of <span> tags are getting arbitly introduced in questions and answers! Chris needs to look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can click "Vote to Remove Message" on the bottom right of the offending message. If it gets enough of those votes, it will be removed automatically.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the reply but I do not see "Vote to remove" link. There is only Rate this message.
Thank you for sparing your valuable time to read my views. Please feel free to suggest and comment on my articles. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
If you do not see "Vote to Remove Message", then you may have found a bug. The "Vote to Remove Message" link should be right below the numeric voting values (1 through 5). Can you check again to make sure you didn't overlook it?
|
|
|
|
|
I swear there is no "Vote to Remove Message". I even searched this text in the website but didnt find.
Thank you for sparing your valuable time to read my views. Please feel free to suggest and comment on my articles. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, I see that link on the message in question. In that case, just vote the message a 1-vote. I think that has the same effect. I'm sure the site admins will get back to you to let you know what else might be going on (e.g., a permission issue or a bug).
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
