|
No, Both are same user. OP changed the user id. Take a look at the profile.
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid the issue of pretentious, erm, members, whinging about univoters :
Rather than a 1-5 have a like/dislike option (yes, probably facebook-esque but its a far cleaner model)
Lets face it, the voting is almost always either 1 or 5 anyway.
People seem to think that if someone 1-votes their post they are somehow being vindictive, especially if not giving a reason - but rarely worry about if a reason is given for a 5 vote.
While the difference is a subtle one, merely clicking a 'don't like' post may seem (to those whose lives revolve around their rep points, and frequently denying same) less abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
So instead of people complaining about a downvote, people will complain about a "don't like"?
I'm not sure what we've gained here.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
as I said, it's a perception thing - you're not 'downvoting' just saying "I didn't like your post"
|
|
|
|
|
Same difference... I do use the intermittent votes in Q&A... for example, if an answer is correct but the solution fails to point out a caveat.
One I tend to nitpick personally is WaitForSingleObject() with INFINITE wait times (C/C++ through WinAPI), although that's a personal thing, I've had arguments with people in here about that one, but in that case, I'd vote a 4 instead of a 5. The solution is correct, but telling a user to use INFINITE waits instead of error handling is not good (IMO of course).
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that there are members who do not understand what a vote of 1 means.
For some (many?) of them, it is giving one (plus) point to someone else - not a downvote at all! You can see that from messages they left after voting ("My vote of 1: Good article...").
They do not know how many points they are allowed to spend, etc., so a vote of 1 is also a good vote, isn't it?
When they can vote up or down only, things would be clearer for them (I hope so, but how can I be sure?).
|
|
|
|
|
We have a thumbs up / thumbs down on the messages, a "Poor" / "Excellent" on the articles, and a 1-5 stars on Quick Answers. I'm not sure how much clearer we can be.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How about doing what I've suggested 50,000 times now  and not even HAVE voting? What's the point? If you see something you don't like, its easy to down-vote and move along. If you actually had to respond, a lot of people wouldn't even bother. I've never been on a forum with voting where the voting isn't childish and vindictave and everybody doesn't get their feelings hurt. The best forums I've been on where everyone mostly helps you out are the ones that don't have voting.
You do realize that we REALLY invaded Iraq cuz that douchebag down-voted Bush on some forum right???
|
|
|
|
|
Don't even get me started on the sock-puppet debacle with the Kuwait thing.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
There is a thread just started in the Soapbox[^] that got me thinking. How about if it isn't obvious who downvoted, then in order to downvote, you lose the same points as your "victim". Persistant univoters would soon run out of authority to do any serious damage...just a thought! 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Marking stuff as sub-optimal is an important service. I don't know if the thought of losing points to warn others is sufficient motivation 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I don't know if the thought of losing points to warn others is sufficient motivation
It might be since we are talking here about persistent univoters. The more downvotes they cast, the more points they lose. But if incase its still isn't, maybe we can put a limit on the number of downvotes per day? My 2 cents.
Signature construction in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience.
|
|
|
|
|
Loosing a point for a down vote doesn't appear to stop bad stuff from getting pounded on on stack overflow. OTOH the lounge, soap box, etc get a lot more controversial content than there are bad questions and answers in the programming sections.
I think it would probably work; if it doesn't could could always pull it and do another rep recalc...
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Or:
If someone down vote, the one must have to explain the reason.
|
|
|
|
|
So you have a message about a vote on a message. Which can, itself, be voted on. Possibly with a downvote.
Recursion, see...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time, about ten years ago to be precise, there were Chris, Christian, JSOP, Elaine, Colin, Shog, a bunch of Michaels, Nish, Paul and some other o'fellows, and everything was fine. Without voting. Without need to remove, to abuse, to gain reputation, to post against reputation points to gain more reputation points, to ban and be banned, etc... You could even talk crude in the Lounge from time to time ( after all, it's a Lounge).
And then, the dark side of the force took slowly over...
|
|
|
|
|
I could imagine that 
10 years ago I was in school & didn't know about internet, programming, CP, Bob, etc.,
|
|
|
|
|
thatraja wrote: 10 years ago I was in school & didn't know about internet, programming, CP, Bob, etc.,
Ouch ! Thanks for reminding me that I am getting older...
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you're < 40
|
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time everyone at the CodeProject were here to share code and to discuss programming as a group of professionals who were more interested in helping one another rather than showing how important they are.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps get rid of rep points?
------------------------------------
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 Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Members using the forums as a way to self-promote, belittle others, or carp endlessly about topics that no one else is interested in and have absolutely nothing to do with software development has been going on way before the rep system.
The overwhelming majority of members do the right thing by their fellow members and deserve the recognition of their contributions. I would not have thought that a solution that involves penalising the majority of the people because of the actions of an extremely small group fits in with your philosophy.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I would not have thought that a solution that involves penalising the majority of the people because of the actions of an extremely small group fits in with your philosophy.
You are correct in your summise.
------------------------------------
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 Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well said. I started out in the forums as a way of thanking those who I had learned from in the articles. Oh, and to have my massive ego stroked.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe the evolution of the site just followed the evolution of society in general. I *hate* people who keep stating "it was better before", but I reckon that I had to use this sentence a lot recently. I don't feel good about it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
