|
no no. Upvoting means voting 5, 4, or "good"; downvoting would be 1, 2, or "bad". And it works for each individual vote, not for an average score. It gets added when it happens, so a lot of votes may be beyond the 5-page history.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: If someone downvotes an accepted answer, should I have points deducted?
I think yes. It's all up to individual's opinions, and what one person considers an acceptable answer another (maybe wiser?) person may feel is a terrible answer.
Richard MacCutchan wrote: If OP accepts my answer (regardless of its voter value) should I have points added?
Yes. Your "recent rep events" only lists a small subset of your events so the points may have been added outside that range. We'll expand this once we see the extent of the load it puts on the servers.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: the load it puts on the servers
Chris, IMO you could reduce the rep history load quite a bit by not putting the link on the graph tab; I seldom want the graph, it always looks the same. 
|
|
|
|
|
Ever onwards and upwards in a exponential curve.
(Mine is, see[^])
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Still, it doesn't make much sense to see it several times a week (a mathematician would tell you an exponential is as boring as a straight line). Frequently looking at the history is much more informative, as it documents activity, such as being voted, bookmarked, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, but that was the point I was making, you can always predict what it will look like.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that sounds entirely reasonable.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
The nice new 'Recent Points' feature has led me to an interesting discovery.
Last May someone posted this[^] message in Q&A. I responded as you will be able to see.
Today someone has down-voted me for this. I assume that it was not the OP unless they have been so busy with their new venture that they have only just got round to dealing with their Email.
This looks to me like a classic case of points mining. I don't much mind the down-vote so much as the points mining aspect.
Therefore I propose that points for voting on messages more than X (say 3) months old be discontinued, whether up or down. Still have points for posting an answer, comment etc. but surely voting on something that old serves no real purpose, other than the garnering of points.
While I'm having a little rant I might as well bring up the subject of Editing. Quite recently there have been several instances of a question in Q&A which, although not in perfect English, was understandable with a little effort. In all of the cases I have seen, those questions have been edited to death by several people and the original meaning has been totally lost, in one case the final result was nothing to do with the original.
I don't honestly have an answer for this although I have thought that maybe only edits by the OP actually get applied to the original text (except for applying pre tags) with all others appearing below. That is, one copy below where all non-OP edits get applied. I don't know how practical this might be, particularly for long questions, but I do feel that something needs to be done to preserve the original meaning of questions.
Henry Minute
Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
|
|
|
|
|
You don't get points for down-voting, so not sure what you mean by vote mining.
Also: I strongly believe that if someone likes (and upvotes) your 5 year old article, you should still get points for that.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Also: I strongly believe that if someone likes (and upvotes) your 5 year old article, you should still get points for that.
I do not think he was talking about articles, but rather forum and Q&A messages.
Also while on the topic, I noticed I got points for editing my own Q&A question. That does not seem right. Points can be awarded for editing other peoples posts, but not for editing your own posts.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
Nonsense.
Suppose you give an answer to a question, then you should get points for that.
But if, after further thought, (ie further mental work on the subject), you realise that there more that you can add, then you should get points for the further effort.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
I got 1 point for asking the question. Then one of my edits was to post the solution to my problem, OK 2 points for that. But then I got another 6 points for three more edits as I corrected spelling mistakes and cleaned up the code a little. I do not think one should get points for that.
You may be right
I may be crazy
-- Billy Joel --
Within you lies the power for good - Use it!
|
|
|
|
|
6 points in the grand scheme of things is minor, and is well below the radar, I wouldn't worry about it.
You get points for cleaning up others spelling, why not your own.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC League Table Link
CCC Link[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
IMO edits are difficult to handle properly.
1. I often edit a forum message of mine, almost right away. Typically I create an answer, publish it, read it again, then add a sentence or two (my lateral thinking sometimes kicks in a bit late). I don't really want extra points for that.
2. When I update my forum reply the next day, or my article at any time, I would appreciate extra points and get neither.
3. If I write "color" anywhere, someone edits that to "colour", I turn it back into "color", etc etc ad nauseam, I don't think we should both accumulate lots of points for that.
4. Assuming the "minor edit" checkbox still exists and influences the rewards for an edit, it will be abused.
5. When someone changes a sentence to become the opposite of what it said before (from wrong to right, or the other way around), what to do with the replies, comments, votes? I don't like my "excellent" message to figure below an article that was correct and got changed to blatantly incorrect.
Conclusion:
1. I don't like edits by others, except for an official editor adding formatting. I'm glad forum messages cannot be edited by others; and I don't open my articles for others to edit them (post a reaction, I'll edit if I agree).
2. And I think edits by the original author needs to get better support: (a) automatically add the article's revision number to the message (in a way that can't be edited), and (b) provide a subscription mechanism that lets me subscribe to an article, so I get an e-mail when it gets edited by its author.
PS: not edited yet.
|
|
|
|
|
In the professional profile my perticipation point is 265 and in reputation point is 346. I have also checked other profile and found same problem
|
|
|
|
|
A reputation adjustment was just performed, and it may take some time to sync the graph to your profile page.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
still give wrong value in other field
|
|
|
|
|
Syed BASHAR wrote: still give wrong value in other field
Still Reputation recalculation going dude.
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't we be getting points for approving articles? It's not in the FAQ, and I don't ever see my organizer points go up as a result of doing so...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - that's on the list for organiser points but has to wait until we rework the system to make approval require X votes.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for an OData reputation feed so that I can give you a Silverlight rep graph.
|
|
|
|
|
I managed to get a very basic feed up last week but getting the flu over Christmas/NY killed a week of prime productivity time. Soon.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've added a way for you to get back your organiser points: Squillions[^]. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader on how I got that.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That's funny.
Because I voted this early in the day, I'm sure you got the points for my five vote...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
