|
I have noticed that all the Latest best picks are actually old articles. It's even funny to see the Best November 2014 article in the list of best picks, having been "first posted" on 23 Jan 2015. How an article published in 2015 could win a 2014 competition?
I already saw that situation in the past, but in my opinion that bug is purposely being abused, as only the 5th article in the latest best picks is actually new.
What bothers me the most is that I wanted to know what are the real latest best picks to take a look at them!
|
|
|
|
|
It's not what you think it is. Look at the revisions. They go back to 5-Nov-14. The real bug is the First Posted On date is wrong!
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I know that the revisions go back. Yet, the First Posted is wrong, and they are only appearing as latest best picks because of that.
If I update one of my articles that has lots of votes but First Posted is not changed, it doesn't have any change of entering the latest best picks. After all, it is not new.
So, it seems that they discovered how to update the "First posted". So, being a "new" article with hundreds of votes (that are kept from the past), it goes to the latest best picks.
|
|
|
|
|
Your original post didn't make that clear (to me at least), which is why I posted my message.
@Chris-Maunder or @Sean-Ewington need to look into this ASAP!
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not explicitly but what do you understand by "Mix between site bug and users abuse" and by this:
"...in my opinion that bug is purposely being abused, as only the 5th article in the latest best picks is actually new."
|
|
|
|
|
The articles in question are articles that were deleted and then republished. An article's "posted" date is the date at which it becomes publicly available. If an article is deleted then republished we set the "publicly available" date as the date it was republished.
An author, for various reasons, decided to remove all their articles, and then decided to republish all their articles.
I'll let the voters decide on the articles in question.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris, I am not sure if we are seeing the same situation.
I already deleted an article and when I published it again, it came with 0 votes and no previous history. But this was a long time ago, so I don't know if things changed.
Yet, what bothers me is that any article that already has votes and is republished immediately becomes the "Latest Best Pick" because it is seen as new by the system, yet full of votes that were got before the article was republished. It seems that it is not considering only the new votes since it was republished, so, an article that got hundreds of votes during years, if it is republished, becomes the "Best Pick" because it has hundreds of votes, while a new article, very good, with 50 votes in a single day, will stay at second... or fifth, when there are too many articles in that situation.
And, if it was to be able to appear in the latest best picks, I believe that any update to an article should be allowed to appear there too.
|
|
|
|
|
That's not my main problem, it is that they have a relatively high rating, but are horrible articles. They flourish with mistakes and bad practice advice. If that's how futile the voting system is, then we might as well skip the votes all together, in my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a new procedure in place (for testing, I think) to try and re-jig this. If you can point me at the bad practice articles, I'd be pleased to give it a try.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
This one was pretty bad:
Basic C# OOP Concept[^]
I did notice that the rating went down from 4.01 to 3.91 when I voted.
|
|
|
|
|
I knocked it down another 0.1 as well...
I've tried the new reporting system, and I'll see what happens.
Still, at least the author has 70 friends. Or 70 sock puppets...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Or he has 70 students, god forbid 
He has some other bad articles as well, but I think this was the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not the one I meant - talk to Sean about the email he sent me yesterday - but a damn good idea! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the new voting system... yet to me the latest best picks should be only to new articles. Republished articles can only be considered new if they were deleted and republished when they were actually new yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
If the try was the "innacurate/misleading" report, we have make it work. Article is gone.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I count on the voting system to filter out the articles that are really good and I can learn a lot from. Having false votes is a nightmare, especially if someone is unknown author, or new to the CodeProject site and know which ones to trust. I don't know about you but I cant read thousands of articles to find the good stuff, I need some help in selecting which ones to read.
|
|
|
|
|
I know and I agree with you.
My answer was to OG, a bit offtopic to your point, sorry 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's all right, I'm just a bit frustrated about it so I get a bit wired up 
|
|
|
|
|
I had an article ready to be posted, I was writing the article for 2 days, I did preview it more than once and save it constantly. I tried to check the last version for last time, click on preview and suddenly the WHOLE ARTICLE dissapeared. I got an error from CodeProject and everything is gone. Two days job thrown to the garbage....
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on it.
Update: What was the title of the article? You mentioned you were saving it over the 2 days. Does that mean you were clicking the "save draft" or were you checking the "work in progress" button and hitting "publish"?
I can see that you started an article last night (about 12 hrs ago) but it had no content and no versions of it had been saved in revision histories.
cheers
Chris Maunder
modified 3-Feb-15 9:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the 4th article on the same topic and it was named "MVC and Identity Framework 2.0 (Part 4)". I've been working on the article for 2 days, I saw it before in the preview, I uploaded screenshots from my computer and I swear it was there. After the last preview it dissapeared with an error from CodeProject. Before that it was always there, now it's totally empty.
|
|
|
|
|
I apologise for the problems you're seeing. This sucks. I've spent a bit of time tracking through what's happened and the dates seem weird.
You mentioned you'd been working on this for 2 days. I can find the stub of an article that has two uploads (this and this). That article was started last night (13hrs ago) and the uploads were done this morning (8hrs ago).
Every article that's started will have the timestamp of when you started editing it, and even if we had serious issue (and we did for about 7hrs last night) the basic article stub would still have the correct timestamps.
This is turning into a bit of a mystery.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
