|
I think anything that can help numb the pain of dealing with spammers etc. is a good thing, those who don't understand or object probably are a spammers.
e.g.
1) Members who do not change their default display name from "Member XXXXXXX" should not be allowed to post articles/tips/replies.
2) Members who have not replied to at least "x messages", i.e. interacted with others cannot be allowed to post New Topics / Articles / Tips etc.
There are probably other constraints that can be considered to help.
Note: OnePlus[^] use the 5 message replies rule before creating new topics in their forums as I found out when I went to post a query and this forced me to read around the site, look at other conversations and get a feel for the place and engage. And in doing so answered a few other queries I had in my skull, no longer needing to ask them.
modified 13-Nov-14 14:43pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Problems are that most of the flood spammers we had recently do change the default name: partly to make themselves look more "respectable" I suspect.
And Articles / Tips aren't a major problem - they don't get out into the "live" world without moderation, and they are pretty slow to post. It's QA that gets hit, and hit hard - because it can't be moderated (without a level of manpower we probably don't have) and it seems that it's really, really fast to post to (a dozen or so all timestamped to the second with the same author!)
I'm also not convinced that a "you must post n messages before you do this" would do any more good than harm: if they can post questions seriously fast, it wouldn't be difficult for them to post a dozen "Thanks for a great article!" messages at random before starting with the fun-and-games. And I can see it scaring off genuine noobies - we already know they don;t want to learn to read! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: In order to vote an article with a mark below 3 the user needs to have acquired some basic level of recognition on the site e.g. have at least 500 reputation points for example. They can still vote on articles, downvote/upvote and do everything else, just limit how they vote on articles until such time as they have proved themselves.
If you see around the down vote, Most of the Downvotes are generated by Noobs who has never written an article themselves. I feel the the reason for downvote is to force the voter to tell where Author has gone wrong. That option is already available as "Your Alternative" which the downvoter won't ever use, as the reason for Downvoting is not letting author know but to troll ( in most cases).
However when you observe the Downvoting used by members having enough reputation is that they exercise downvoting rarely when something is really not at par the site.
Check out the amount of Downvote this noob of two months old account has dished out without any significant elaboration in most cases.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Messages.aspx?fmid=11101272[^]
So in my opinion unless and untill some one has gain that respect to downvote, disallow a downvote. He can always point a fault in the article.
Personally it is very irritating when some retards without any article in CP downvote my article about 200 pages of word document that had taken two weeks to work and compose because there was somewhere I used a "Hard Coded string for db connection".
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly in my own personal experience, the down-votes and unsubstantiated low marks have all come from noobs, so I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect this level of power to be acquired having undergone some basic level of standing on the site (whatever that may be).
I think (as someone said earlier) that a combination of factors is a good idea i.e. reputation points in combination with participation on the site (which is also logged as part of your professional profile).
"With great power comes great responsibility" - Uncle Ben (Spider-Man)
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I would down-vote this post based on the fact you do not include a correct link in your post. The correct link is: [^]. But, down-voting is not allowed on this forum 
For article voting, I don't have any issues with the current situation. Newcomers to CP's down-votes cause a small loss of rep points ... yes ? And, at least the person down-voting on articles has to give a reason, and can be identified.
Whether it is worth CP dev time to implement a mechanism to monitor/control possible patterns of revenge/bitch/trolling down-voting: I think only CP staff can answer that.
But, if you observe a pattern of down-voting that seems suspicious, you can post a message to the Spam and Abuse forum and trigger review.
«At the still point of the turning world. Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is
...
Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance»
T.S. Elliot, The Four Quartets: "Burnt Norton"/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Whoops silly me
It's not so much the loss of rep points, but by voting an article with 1 they also force that article further down the search ranking, whereas in actual fact it may be a perfectly good article. As articles on here are crawled by search engines such as Google then we shouldn't allow good articles to be down-voted unless they are of genuinely poor technical quality.
In the links I provided at the outset, the voter gives a 1 and leaves the comment "meh". This is hardly a technical criticism.
The only basis an article on this site should be judged is on technical merit, and IMO we should strive to ensure that anything that disrupts that process is removed.
Petty voting has no place on CP.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: Petty voting has no place on CP.
True, but as long as people are allowed to "downvote" it will remain.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: True, but as long as people are allowed to "downvote" it will remain.
Not if we limit the ability of noobs (the main offenders) to cast low votes on articles, as I'm suggesting here. Once they have established a basic level of participation with the site, then they can vote as they please.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: noobs (the main offenders)
Given that most of this voting is anonymous, what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
|
|
|
|
|
By those that leave comments against their votes.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Given that most of this voting is anonymous,
Not on articles - you can't down-vote without leaving a comment.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those cycle rides of yours look totally awesome  . Even when I was quite fit I don't think I ever did more than about 60 miles in a single day.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I have three bikes and ride regularly, and go running too. My passion is for cycling though
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think there are two strands to this. The first is curbing spurious low votes, in which there may already be a mechanism in place for dealing with this. The second is a low vote where an unproductive comment has been added. A vote of 1 with the comment "meh" does not help either the author or the reader.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: It's not so much the loss of rep points, but by voting an article with 1 they also force that article further down the search ranking, whereas in actual fact it may be a perfectly good article.
Hi, if you are completely sure that is the case (is it ?), then I agree with you, and I find your point of view a compelling argument for article/tip nugatory-downvote purging !
«The greater the social and cultural distances between people, the more magical the light can spring from their contact» Milan Kundera, "Testaments Trahis"
|
|
|
|
|
Basically not a bad idea at all.
But Points alone do not really reflect the voter's Reputation.
Anyway I'm also very unhappy with a lot of downvotes, especially in "tips". This is not related to me, it is related to authors who try to give an Input...and will be decried.
Sorry for my bad english.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
My colleagues are trying to vote my article. But when ever they do, they said they are getting an error message as "someone else already vote from this IP".I am not sure what kinda IP configuration my office network admin uses. It may be a standard IP. So its not possible to vote from the same organization huh? Please reply me.
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Sibeesh
|
|
|
|
|
Sibeesh KV wrote: Please reply me
For what? Its by design. This was implemented to curb reputation hunting.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot .But we are using different system for different workers. And i have around 20 friends in my office who have code project account. But still they are unable to vote for my article. I am not hunting for reputation. they just found my article and asked about this when they try to vote it.
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Sibeesh
|
|
|
|
|
The limit doesn't last for too long, so if your colleagues wish to vote, they should be able to do so over a period of time. This mechanism was put in place to deter people fro, creating dummy accounts and voting for their own article several times over.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I can understand that . Thanks a lot I will say them to vote from their home if they wish
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Sibeesh
|
|
|
|
|
Sibeesh KV wrote: I will say them to vote from their home if they wish
That is a very good alternative.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
But most of them won't do that. All are lazy
So much complexity in software comes from trying to make one thing do two things.
Sibeesh
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
