|
Sorry, I mis-read what you said; but I did not think that this was intermittent, but always happened. Obviously time for me to do some (serious and logical) testing!
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like it was a cache issue.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
In the last few months, while I've been fairly active on QA forums, I lose count of how many messages I've posted asking the OP to clarify if it's a WinForms, or WPF question, and asking for other basic vital information necessary to even begin to respond to a question.
Similarly, many of the most frequent QA responders, far more active than this blade-of-grass, ask many of the same basic questions in comments. We beg the OP to tag, give us a clue to what they are doing, repeatedly.
And, very often these requests for clarification are ignored. And then, answers are posted, and then the OP finally reveals something about the question they asked that means the answers posted (to date) are not relevant.
I call this all: a waste of valuable time, aka "static."
Is there a way to reduce this "static" while not discouraging posters, newcomers, etc. ?
I believe there is, and it's a strategy we are already "socialized to" in terms of on-line behavior:
1. when entering a new QA question: a simple web-form appears with some required fields (indicated as required in the usual manner by asterisks or whatever). And without checking, entering, selecting, or whatever, the required fields, the question will not be accepted for posting.
2. these 'required fields' can be very sparse:
a. a list of CheckBoxes for languages: C#, JavaScript, Delphi, F#, C++, etc.: at least one must be checked. Or you can have an "other" CheckBox, that, if checked, shows a Textbox where you can enter a small number of characters.
b. a list of RadioButtons (?) for 'FrameWorks:' WinForms, ASP.NET, Mono, WRT, Metro, Delphi, WPF, SilverLight, etc. Only one can be checked ? Or use CheckBoxes, and allow a bunch to be checked ?
I leave it up to your imagination what other optional fields might be available on this web-form. I have several ideas, but would rather hear yours.
In my humble opinion, this very simple requirement which will, of course, be used to generate tags for the question displayed in QA:
Will not impose a burden on any but the most lazy, confused, or cdz-plz and homework-urgentz posters.
It will also contribute to QA responders being able to more efficiently to address the questions asked, and help eliminate the redundant asking for information about context by responders that now prevails.
Please note that: I am not proposing that questioners cannot add their own tags, and/or edit tags in the posted questions.
Whether something like this could have any possible "discouraging" effect on spammers: I don't have a clue.
best, Bill
"Anyone who shows me my 'blind spots' gives me the gift of sight." ... a thought from the shallows of the deeply shallow mind of ... Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Old threads related to this
Restrict Enquirers to post Answers[^]
Complete question[^]
We may show 2 tabs there like Simple View(Default) & Advanced View. Simple View will show the current one & Advanced View will show the above suggested things.
IMO we must hide the Add your solution here textbox from enquirers so they'll automatically use comments link below the solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
The "ask a question" page already enforces minimum title and content requirements as well as requiring a tag (eg C#, ASP.NET).
Our tag chooser has a mode whereby it displays a list of languages, platforms and frameworks, but that list was getting out of control so we opted for a simple plain-text auto-complete box. We also can't enforce a language or framework because what if the question is generic (eg an algorithm)?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: what if the question is generic (eg an algorithm)?
Hi Chris,
Okay, user checks "Other" ... or "All" for Language ... no further entry required
Okay, another row of CheckBoxes: appears if user checks Other/All for language:
"Algorithm" "DataBase" "Threading" "Extensions" "Remoting" "XML" "JSON" "WCF," "Serialization"
I offer these suggestions, I hope, constructively, but my honest opinion is that QA, as is, is far less than it could be, and is accumulating a vast clutter of rare good questions, and great answers, submerged in a tsunami of homework, cdz plz, and absurd questions, and OT answers.
A small requirement of those who ask questions will, I believe, generate more respect for QA because, in my experience, people generally do not respect what they get with no effort, or for "free." And, imho, this is demonstrated every day in QA by numerous posters who never bother to even respond to well-thought out questions in comments that could focus their question.
Ideally, I'd like to see very high-technical rep members (that rep not including Lounge rep points) be able to put a hold on any answers being given to a question until the OP answers a question in a comment that is vital to grasping what the question even ... is. But, I doubt you'd go for that
There's also the reward idea that: if a poster has a certain rep on QA, they can post on QA without filling out the initial form, but my hope would be that would be based only on reputation points not earned on the Lounge; i.e., posts that are direct technical contributions.
Perhaps you are wondering if I have something "against" Lounge rep-points: well, let's just say that for me to have received 72 points for a one-line satiric response to a post from DD on the Lounge, but one point for a carefully thought-out comment to try and help a QA OP clarify their question, seems about as logical as the success of Lady Gaga
best, Bill
"Anyone who shows me my 'blind spots' gives me the gift of sight." ... a thought from the shallows of the deeply shallow mind of ... Bill
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Ideally, I'd like to see very high-technical rep members (that rep not including Lounge rep points) be able to put a hold on any answers being given to a question until the OP answers a question in a comment that is vital to grasping what the question even ... is.
I have already put in place a reporting system that allows many, many members to simply report questions poorly phrased as just that. If more people vote to close questions that show zero effort then we'd have these questions gone, and you'd end up with more of the correct form of example for others to post by.
Putting a hold doesn't really help because while one person puts a hold, another may actually understand the question and can then provide an answer (I've seen this many times). I, personally, would rather see questions that are phrased with no consideration for others' time and effort simply be removed. If you don't care enough to make an effort to phrase your problem intelligently then don't expect an intelligent answer. In fact, don't expect an answer at all.
On the topic of Lounge rep points (Debator points) these do not come into considering when giving people the power to close questions. I have very deliberately created a points system that awards members based on what they do, and provides extra powers on that same basis. The FAQ[^] explains the different types of points for each activity.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
One of the issues, which I raised once before, is that the edit screen for a new question is the first thing the user sees when clicking "Ask a Question". Perhaps it would be better if the first thing the poster saw was the list of rules, and then had to scroll down to actually enter the question.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I have already put in place a reporting system that allows many, many members to simply report questions poorly phrased as just that. If more people vote to close questions that show zero effort then we'd have these questions gone, and you'd end up with more of the correct form of example for others to post by.
Hi Chris, yes, I am aware I can red-flag questions, but here, in my way of thinking is the "Catch-22" there:
1. Many people, including me, are willing to work with people for whom, obviously, English is not their native language, and whose questions are obscure, confused, because of lack of language mastery. Having spent going on now 13 years of my adult life living in countries where English was not the mother-tongue, and having known what it's like to teach English to non-native speakers, I think I have a lot of patience in this area.
2. Posting, in simple language, in a comment, detailed questions designed to help the author of the "obscure" question clarify the question:
... for example see my comment here:[^]
... even being willing to have a dialog, via comments, until the question is clarified is, I think, a good thing, for those of us who are willing to do this. Just as valuable, if not more valuable, than the countless minor edits that are being done of the questions (which are, of course, valuable, also).
But, that does not deal with the issue of getting just the basic tags you need to focus the question ... into the question: when it's first posted.
I believe even the most limited speakers of English, when they post a question know whether they are using C# WinForms, or WPF, SilverLight, or ASP.NET; they know if their question is about something do with databases, or something to do with UserControls, or AJAX, or JavaScript.
My proposal focuses on what can be asked of the questioner in a simple way that's non intrusive, that does not penalize them for lack of English language skills: a way that you already use in many other places in the web, when you fill out forms with required and optional fields.
I am very reluctant to ever 'red flag' a post, and I suspect that the CP norm is very infrequent red-flagging.
Of course you are very right: the issue of putting a hold on a question is "sticky."
Requiring the questioner to spend thirty seconds of their time to select appropriate tags, in my opinion, makes that undesirable option irrelevant.
My apologies for having incorrectly implied a generalization between Lounge-earned points, and certain "powers" based on points earned non-Lounge.
best, Bill
"Anyone who shows me my 'blind spots' gives me the gift of sight." ... a thought from the shallows of the deeply shallow mind of ... Bill
modified 28-Nov-11 6:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
I notice most of these "questions" (In quotes, since many aren't) have less than 100 characters. I almost wonder if entry length needs to play a role.
I know, I know... people will just add "plase plese plase please please answer soon i n33d the codes now thank you in avance god bless you all".
I guess I just share your frustration. I take time I could be spending on paying clients' work to answer questions because I want to give something back. Many posters don't get that.
|
|
|
|
|
Today I noticed, I received Email Notification of my own comments posted on Code Project in Question-Answer section. Is this an additional feature or Bug, I am not sure.
Just wanted to inform about this to Code Project. 
|
|
|
|
|
I was about the mention the same thing!
I posted a reply to a reply to my answer to a question, and received an email to tell me.
Every time I press one of these all black switches, which are labelled in black on a black background, a small black light lights up black to let me know I've done it...
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ford.
I'll make a note to get this fixed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Like you and Griff I was also going to post about that
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
This should be fixed now.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Chris.
|
|
|
|
|
I know it kinda flies in the face of what we really want to do here, but maybe implementing a 72-hour delay in posting permission for new users would go a long way to avoiding the new-user spamming we've been seeing the last few days.
Alternatively (and/or additionally), disallowing posting ANY message with HTML, or a even a url as plain text for users with fewer than N rep points and/or tenure on the site. At a bare minimum, this would mitigate their true aim which is to propagate their spam URLs.
You could also automatically ban people that post nothing but a series of URLs without having a sufficient number of rep points and/or tenure on the site.
".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 am all for most probationary tactics for new users. As they contribute, the restrictions fall away. Good suggestion.
Just along for the ride.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not too sure about that - sometimes a link to an image in Q&A is really helpful. And many people only register when they have a question they want to ask.
I can't help feeling that that would punish the innocent more than it would harm the guilty.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I can't help feeling that that would punish the innocent more than it would harm the guilty.
But the spammers are keen to exploit this kind of charitable attitude. I agree, it's too bad we have to consider a move like this, but in the absence of any proactive spam elimination methodology, I think this is the only viable approach. I have never been a big fan of saying "oh well, we have to put up with this abuse".
For a new user, the ability to post a link is NOT what I would call a vital feature.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I have never been a big fan of saying "oh well, we have to put up with this abuse"
Nor have I - it is a problem from time to time - but I'm also reluctant to use the only weapon which would be effective: DOS attacks on the link target... 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And many people only register when they have a question they want to ask.
I completely agree with this point, that's the only reason I signed up a long time ago... because I needed help with something, if they can't post for a period of time, that won't sit too well with a lot of people (would probably encourage them to find alternatives).
|
|
|
|
|
Penalising new members for the sake of a few bad apples helps no one.
a) it pissed off new members. Actually, no it doesn't, it simply says "go away".
b) Think about the hoops that spammers already go through. They sign up, in some cases they confirm their email address, and then they find forums, Quick Answers, and now even tips and work out how to post their spam. Waiting 3 days isn't much of a deterrent. Set up the accounts one weekend then go nuts the next.
On top of this you may have noticed that a ton of spam has come from compromised accounts.
I think awarding you guys Spam Hunter badges is the way to go.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I think awarding you guys Spam Hunter badges is the way to go.
Could we get a Reputation Point Crybaby badge too? If you say 'Yes'... I will commit to writing the bayesian probability module that detects and nukes the SPAM messages... as well as automatically granting the reputation crybaby badge. 
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
