|
No, there was some dirt in the uSwitch which caused "unclean" contacts - so it bounced, and released when I dragged, and so forth. PITA!
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
This is a current issue but we're planning on fixing this.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
When trying to access an article via mentor group, I always seem to get a message:
This article is still being written and is not currently available for general viewing.
This happens even though I'm participating in the CodeProject Mentors.
Is this because of my current Author level or what could be the reason?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm. Seems like it was a profile error. Try now?
Thanks,
Sean Ewington
The Code Project
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, now I'm able to open the articles, thanks 
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=4158141#xx4158141xx[^]
RJOberg makes a very good argument here. Balboos' post was reported as abuse. Heated and passionate, but not abuse. He still has to sit with that many points against him? This doesn't seem right not me.
I only bring attention to this because saying something offensive is not the same as being abusive. A one vote for offensive is Ok but -160 points for hurting someone's feelings is a bit much in my book.
"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)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
modified 15-Feb-12 14:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The report system is designed to allow for members getting shirty and hitting it in anger. A post requires more than one person to knock it off. As to the spurious loss of points, that happens. Is there an alternative that provides a mechanism to report abusive messages while allowing free speech? Keep in mind that solutions such as "only allow this for members over X rep" don't work.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Having found myself dragged into this (or putting my foot into it), I noted one remark a few times, which is that 'Report Abuse is the New one'.
Here's a potential solution: don't give the report-abuse a point value (at least) until an item is actually considered abusive. This would, I conjecture, prevent the above paraphrased remark from becoming reality and simultaneously destroying the credibility of the abuse flag.
Seems like a possibly improvement if not solution.
Better Living Through Vegetables
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Now *that* is a good idea.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
As someone has now gone on a spree with calling my posts abuse (even opinions on hot chili pepper cultivation) I may have to recant my suggestion.
It has simply decayed into a mechanism for harassment. It's easy to create new accounts, so, even were you to expunge all of the culprit's damage, they would just create a new account and do it again (harassing you, as well). Perhaps it should just go? Abuse/span certainly exists, but it would seem an alternative mechanism needs to be developed.
Never shy for suggestions: perhaps disabling until one reaches some minimal level for this option - thereby pretty much eliminate rogue accounts.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: disabling until one reaches some minimal level for this option
The guys who engage in this pettiness usually have sufficient rep. Minimum rep levels don't solve these types of issues.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
The minimum rep would mostly solve the issue of sock puppet accounts created for the purpose of reporting messages as abuse. Though, you might already be doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
I do think Balboos's proposal, if I understand it correctly, is a good idea.
I'd like to see the CP staff use their collective wisdom, and overview of the site-as-a-whole, be the primary determinant of what is judged abusive, or not.
I would like to see the "abuse flag" kept as part of the possible post-reaction options, and I would hope the CP staff would take into account the number of "abuse reports" in making a decision on whether a given post is truly abusive or not ... in fact I would assume that would occur.
Whether, once a post has been judged as "abusive," then some weighting of the number of abuse reports should be calculated into the resulting negative rep score: I'm not sure on that one.
I think I'd rather see a post finally judged "abusive" have some equivalent of the "scarlet letter" put on it, than bother with the minutiae of figuring out how many points per abuse report the OP should lose. Color it pink ?
I also find some merit in Mark Merrens' description of an 18 month old post being reported as abuse as being at the very least "suspicious."
It would not bother me if the report abuse flag was not available on posts over 30 days old. I can still voice my opinion on the post by responding to it as forcefully as I like, and down-voting it. And, if it had enough #1 votes, it would still get snuffed ... right ?
If there are frequent incidents of reporting old posts as abuse, and the CP staff has to "investigate" them for possibly being some form of revenge, vendetta, etc., I think that's such a waste of CP staff time.
best, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
Something like this seems good ... if a post isn't actually removed then it doesn't deserve abuse-downscoring. (It would still count as a 1 vote, I assume.)
|
|
|
|
|
I like this approach, especially as it moves the abuse back to being what it's intended for; removing abusive posts.
|
|
|
|
|
I've just had this and I'm not a happy bunny, at all. I can accept being downvoted, what I don't like is besing sneakily punished by someone reporting as abuse an 18 month old post that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, spam or abuse. I've asked for it to be retsored (160 points? WTF???) but have been told there is nothing wrong with it. Really? That's the stance? In that case I shall start using the same method to hit out at people I don't much like or if I don't like what they say: after all it's just an opinion as to what is abusive, isn't it? You need to sort this out before this really does happen: I'll take it once but that'll be it - 160 points is beyond punitive and is a weapon, not a vote.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
I had 000's of point whacked last week over an innocuous post.
I complained that it seemed unfair and got even more abuse posts for things that were not abuse.
I think the Abuse Vote is too large a weapon, it should be there for flagging to the CP team who, if they see it as genuinely abusive, should remove the post, perhaps putting a "This Post Removed - Abusive or Vaguely Politically Incorrect Terminology Likely To Cause Offence To Those Who Are Thin Skinned Or Those Lacking A Sense Of Humour"
---------------------------------
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[ ^]
English League Tables - Live
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Likely To Cause Offence To Those Who Are Thin Skinned Or Those Lacking A Sense Of Humour
But clearly those who aren't thin skinned aren't worried about this.
We're going to rework the reporting system to use the same reporting system other elements use.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
In the meantime please tell me how an abuse vote can be justified 18 months after the original post. The system is plainly wrong and would soon fall into dissaray if we all started marking posts as abuse just because we don't liek th eposter and it's a pretty good way of hitting out. This needs sorting now: perhaps it shoudl take at least 5 votes before something is accpeted as abusive or spam - it should not be up to one person to be judge, jury and executioner, so to speak. I can think of quite a few posters who will probably now use this to get at people.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
If someone posts something that's abusive, is it right to not allow someone to mark it as abusive at any time? Do we have a statute of limitations that says "after 3 months a post can no longer be closed by the community"? That, to me, makes no sense.
mark merrens wrote: perhaps it shoudl take at least 5 votes before something is accpeted as abusive or spam
The system already has this. The difference is that, currently, each vote of "abuse" loses you points. After a certain number of votes the message is closed. Here, losing points and closing the points are separate events, but as I said, we will change this.
Stopping members from reporting abuse is not the answer. Send me a link to the post marked as abuse and I will look at the patterns of voting by the member who voted you down and if it looks like someone's abused the system then their account, and not our reporting system, will be removed.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: If someone posts something that's abusive, is it right to not allow someone to
mark it as abusive at any time? Do we have a statute of limitations that says "after 3 months a post can no longer be closed by the community"? That, to me, makes no sense.
It makes sense to me: who is looking at posts 18 months and going 'Oh, I don't like that, it's abuse'. Fien if it si but it clearly wasn't. Besides, abuseive is an opinion and you're giving to much power to thin skinned people.
I sent it to Sean and he seemed to feel it was correct. I disagree. Strongly.
The problem is that it will start to get used to punish people - you need to deal with it. besides 160 points??? Way too many. A reasonable amount and I wouldn't even have noticed.
And yes, this has made me angry cos it's wrong.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
I hear you when you say you're angry that someone marked one of your posts as abuse. Can you please send me a link to that message?
I've also, hopefully, explained that we're changing the system, but until that change is done I will not be disabling a system that helpful members use many times a day to rid this site of spam.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
How to Become a Rumorous C# Developer[^]
Not so much about the fact that I was marked but the clear purpose behind it. The post is patently not abusive or rude and it was sought out nearly 18 months after the original post. Doesn't take a mastermind to figure it out.
Ridding us of spam is one thing (and appreciated) - but perhaps you should assess whether or not points of this magnitude need be deducted. In any case it's also for abuse and that, clearly, is in the mind of the beholder - you can't have people who are offended by whatever striking back in such an obvious way.
|
|
|
|
|
The vote your seeing is from a member who seems to legitimately feel your message should be removed. No down-voting spree or abuse. They simply feel that someone posting a message saying an article is "silly and pointless" should be removed. Seems to me the are entitled to their opinion.
Old messages resurface all time time. You're reading too much into this vote. "it was sought out nearly 18 months after the original post. Doesn't take a mastermind to figure it out." does jive with what I see. A member has simply voted for a message's removal.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Chris, don't buy it. There is absolutely no way that post can be considered abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Not satisfied at all. Think I'll go find some posts that offend me and vote them as abusive. You can't complain: all I have to say is that they offend me and that's it: -160 points. Wonder how many I can get through in one night? And, yes, I am pissed about this: it's not even the points it's that I will have to tread on eggshells in case I upset someone who doesn't even have to reveal themselves to do this. Bloody right I'm angry and no, I will not drop this until something is done to redress the situation in a fair manner. Perhaps if you're going to allow it you have to show who it is: I'd like the right to question my accuser, so to speak. I'm sure you'll think I'm being a little childish over this but I don't see why it should be allowed to be used to punish honest posts.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
