|
see my comment to nishant, he started by 5'ing then changed his votes
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: This kid's following me around downvoting unrelated entries
Upvoting rather. He seems to have given you a few 5s (based on his comments) to try and get on your good side. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow that would scare me out of QA for a while.
Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. "
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah... definitely creepy
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was kind of funny at first, until he just wouldn't go away... then started downvoting
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like the mentality of a spoiled brat that is used to getting what they want. Probably pressured by parents to go into engineering or something similar based on the pay. However, this type of person will go absolutely nowhere in this industry.
Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. "
— Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rutvik Dave wrote: 'Santosh' means 'Satisfaction'
that is ironic and funny! 
|
|
|
|
|
[At the risk of opening a big can 'o worms...]
Might I suggest a per-article limit to the number of downloads for which reputation points are awarded?
I've only submitted two articles (so far), and have already made it to "Legend" level for Author, the majority of reputation points coming from downloads (3800+) for my 2nd article. As much as I am gratified by the positive attention, it doesn't seem right having achieved the maximum Author level after only two articles.
Either that, or add more levels (Legend-2 at 50,000 points, Legend-3 at 100,000 points, etc).
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
This has been beaten to death repeatedly over several threads over the last few weeks. Maunder's said there will be a change to the download points prior to parsing the logs and giving a decade of retroactive points. (Apparently he didn't like the idea of his getting 1M additional points and moving into first.) He's refused to say in advance what the change he's going to make will be though. 
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Shhhh... you're going to ruin it for the rest of us. I've been relying on one article to get me to gold. 
|
|
|
|
|
wow! ...very honorable of you to suggest this... 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to lower the points from 5 to 1.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I still think it seems a bit high, but I guess stopping there let you keep all your math in integer form which has some benefit.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I think it should be 1 for every N downloads...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
 I'll try to enjoy my gold status while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
Not only you dude, Luc, Sandeep, etc., are worrying about the Platinum status.
|
|
|
|
|
I think anyone who's a long term author will probably end up with more points after the recalc, since the +5 has only been applied to new downloads (proof: Maunder has ~200k downloads, but nowhere near 1M author points).
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. Yes, Chris said the rep.recalculation will be on this week end or next.
|
|
|
|
|
AspDotNetDev wrote: I'll try to enjoy my gold status while it lasts.
Please vote my articles quickly before the rep.recalculation.
|
|
|
|
|
If you maintain the act of downloading is worth 2 points, you are basically saying that to CP readers are more important than writers.
Giving points for being downloaded is OK, having a way to limit the number is fine too (a linear function does not achieve that, you will change your mind again later on), however I must suggest, once more, you don't give any points for actively downloading, it does not organize anything, therefore not 2 Org points, not 1 Org points, just nada.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
The quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get. Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they improve readability. CP Vanity has been updated to V2.3
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
Good idea - but maybe go with diminishing returns. A log scale: 1 point per download for the first 1000, 1 per 10 for the next 10K, 1 per 100 for the next 100K etc.
Either way - when do you plan to implement this change? Gotta know how long I have my platinum rating 
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
Not a bad idea - but what if someone makes a significant update to an article? The decay factor will need resetting. If we do this, then there is nothing to stop someone simply renaming their download regularly to reset whatever we put in place.
As to timing, we have to work through a perf issue that has seen the recalc blow out to 4 days instead of half a day. Just trying to work out which SLEEP(1000) call needs to be removed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
As there is no real way to automagically measure the significance of an update, I would vote against resetting the decay factor.
Updates still get rewarded indirectly - an update tends to result in renewed exposure which (assuming the article is worthy), leads to more upvotes.
As a side note, I would also say that the act of downloading should result in any rep points.
Graham
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
