|
I don't think it is unreasonable that people learn to post appropriate questions. Having the question closed might prompt the person to read the rules, maybe look at questions that have been answered, and learn to post a better-quality question? There is a balance between helping newbs and having a site that is 90% poor quality questions that illicit no real response.
If you were a car mechanic and every day you have a hundred phone calls; "There is a warning light on my dash and the car doesn't work, what's the problem?" what would you do? Stop answering the phone probably.
I'm on the fence really, if the question is largely well-asked but missing some salient details then I don't mind them being prompted for more, but if the question is just a poorly worded subject and the body is just a code dump then I have no problem with the question just being closed. Likewise if the question indicates the user is entirely out of their depth and looking for people to do their work for them, again I have no issues with those "non questions" being closed. Culture is formed largely through moderation, and if you allow hoards of poor-quality questions then that's the culture you get.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: Culture is formed largely through moderation
Excellent point.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
This post really mis-represents my observations and my concerns.
We already have tons of junk questions, and tons of junk answers slathered on by rep-bloating cowboys. Some few of us are "playing by different rules," striving to make every solution we post accurate, and possibly of value, over time, for both the OP, and for CodeProject, and often spending as much time posting comments to OP's trying to help clarify what they have/want/need as in posting "solutions."
Your implying that extending a window of time (perhaps 24 hours) for newbies/newcomers to have the opportunity to clarify their questions in response to comments on their original post (before they are deleted) somehow will trigger a flood of poor-quality questions is simply a negative fantasy on your part.
Please note that I did not (and am not) proposing stopping the current practice of quickly killing those posts that are blatantly homework, or so egregiously off-topic and technically inane they "beg" to be eliminated quickly 
As someone who has lived in Asia 15 years of his adult life, and had experience teaching at various levels from high-school through college, I am always concerned about the experience of people for whom English is not their native language. Having been the (often undeserving) recipient of tolerance, and friendly suggestions for "course correction," in personal behavior and technical knowledge, I would like to try to "pay some of that forward."
I agree with you that there's a strong relationship between culture and moderation; but, we may have different views on what moderation means.
with respect, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
Your initial post suggested cutting some slack for newbies. Fair enough. Your idea of allowing a period of grace, say 24 hours is better and more concrete. I would agree that it may be helpful to flag some questions which are clearly not wilful abuse as incomplete. At that point the OP could be given a period of time to amend the question and/or respond to comments. Solutions should not be accepted during this period which would reduce the number of gratuitous homilies being posted as answers. How to moderate this schema still remains a problem as for example what happens after the period of grace if the question still does not come up to scratch.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
modified 12-Dec-15 0:01am.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Peter,
fyi: I probably did not mention the more specific idea of a "grace period" during which questions cannot be deleted if flagged in my first post because: I've mentioned that idea, in detail, many times in posts here on this forum; and, at the time I wrote the first post, I was a bit "burned-out" mentally.
In the past, I've advocated the idea on this forum that CP Members with some "threshold" reputation level as "Authority" be able to flag a QA question as "on hold for deletion and down-voting" if:
1. comments have been posted on the question asking for clarification, or asking the user to tag the question more completely.
2. the OP has responded, in some meaningful way, to comments in a way that indicates they are making a good-faith effort to make the question clearer.
My thoughts about the possible roles of MVP's in this are not so clear; some MVP's right now regularly post comments, and we-don't-do-homework advice to the OP of a non-technical nature, as solutions, now. Some MVP's rapidly post solutions (often cut-and-paste replies from previous answers) that are really off-topic.
I find it interesting that while CP does have the role/status of "Protector" available, the behavior of some of the persons with this role is anything but "protection."
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Your implying that extending a window of time (perhaps 24 hours) for newbies/newcomers to have the opportunity to clarify their questions in response to comments on their original post (before they are deleted) somehow will trigger a flood of poor-quality questions is simply a negative fantasy on your part.
Well that's not what I intended to mean. I said that with some questions (yes, it's a judgement call, there are no hard and fast rules) I think the OP should be given a prompt for more info if the question is generally of ok quality or has potential to be, but if the question is just trash then it should be closed.
The language aspect is another interesting one...there have been questions that *I* understand (even if they're vague) that other people who don't have English as their first language don't and seek to close the question, sometimes successfully and that can be frustrating, especially if you've provided an answer as you *did* understand it. I think most people would agree (?) that perhaps existing comments\solutions should remain visible if a question is closed.
|
|
|
|
|
F-ES Sitecore wrote: I think most people would agree (?) that perhaps existing comments\solutions should remain visible if a question is closed.
An interesting point, and one I'm inclined to agree with, but, then, what would it mean that a question is "closed."
Maybe a better way to focus on this issue is to ask:
"In what circumstances should a question be "frozen" for any further posting/editing, etc.; and, in what circumstances should a question be deleted ?"
If the question is an obvious waste of time, but there is, for whatever reason, an excellent solution posted ... yes, this does happen ... what then ?
«Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.» Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
As an aside, it takes 3 reports to close a post but if one of those 3 used a different reason to the other 2 then only the other 2 are listed on the closure notice.
The "bit of slack" gets my vote too - I've often come across questions where comments suggest that other members don't think the question is clear but I've interpreted it ok (the reverse has also been true!). Then when I come back with the solution I find the post closed 
I usually avoid reporting as unclear or not-a-question until the OP has had a chance to come back with more information
If a post is being reported for spam/abuse then I think a swift end is justified, but for unclear reports deffo a bit more leeway required
|
|
|
|
|
My friend's Account has been de-activated without any reason. He has not posted any post.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/Membership/View.aspx?mid=6477852
Closed because the member is being abusive or is a troll. Reported by den2k88, Richard Deeming, KaushalJB, Richard MacCutchan, super, phil.o, OriginalGriff, Rohan Leuva, Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:12pm
Any bug?
___ ___ ___
|__ |_| |\ | | |_| \ /
__| | | | \| |__| | | /
|
|
|
|
|
|
He used the Hindi-equivalent of the f-word. Not sure if he had to be banned for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Especially in case one write it in English it would be "corrected" automatically and after this correction usually nobody will take care about the f word. Looks pretty unfair to ban him because of this.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, we have too many of these over-sensitive people here these days. It's just text at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: we have too many of these over-sensitive people here these days.
What happens is one person posts it in Spam and Abuse and then everyone else comes along and trusts that the poster has done due diligence and so they mark it as abusive without even researching it. Maybe a little too much trust in that forum. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely right and I have to think about this for myself again, I mean to report something for which I can't read the "abuse text". I think I trusted too much in the past.
Not in this case, but maybe in a lot of other cases....
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: but maybe in a lot of other cases
I've done it too. And most of the time people who post in here are correct.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm (there is no Translation available )
I hope it is like this. But anyway I will be mutch more cautious in future.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is saying that f***** is right and c****** is an abusive word..?
First he should be investigate if he don't know meaning of that word. In India its very common word people of India used it their friend circle,
How can he mark a comment to abusive that he is not clear that its abusive or not?
A person maintaining his account more that 6 years and 1 day somebody came and marked his account as abusive and many of them just go with flow and blocked his account.
For his information the word so called abusive meaning is "An Idiot" in India.
|
|
|
|
|
AVI_T wrote: A person maintaining his account more that 6 years
Number years doesn't matter at all here in this context. When was asked to remove the abusive post, why he/you did not remove it?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
That time hi is not in city, and hi didn't have computer to use CP that time, when hi back with his holidays and want to login then he come to know that his account is de activated.
|
|
|
|
|
Let me ask you straight forward, Are you that guy with new ID? In that case I can discuss further but else no point arguing without facts and talking about a third person
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Is any way to Re-Activate blocked account?
|
|
|
|
|
I think this thread got way too side tracked, so the site admins may not even be following the thread. You may want to email Chris or Sean directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that all it was? From the message in the Spam forum, I assumed it was something much worse. 
In that case, I'm happy for my report on the user to be removed.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
