@FinalContest good, according to me, it is just useless anyway and if this is allowed, I'll post a question of this type everyday in meta, because I also wander about in android for at-least 4 hours a day.
This. Establish credibility by being polite, giving an answer to the immediate problem and then dispense the advice. The knowledge may be ignored by the poster, but years from now your advice might guide another novice programmer. Alternatively, don't answer at all. Some questions (while valid) add very little to the site. — Tim MedoraMay 5 at 8:45
@JanDvorak I was just kidding. I don't post a lot of questions.
@FinalContest Alternatively, don't answer at all, these days, I am just following this line, but now, I just started thinking about years from now your advice might guide another novice programmer, but, only if they care to search. Btw, I am also a novice programmer.
but this comment has a good point and I'll surely follow it from now on
I must find some spare time for creating a signature replica of the AVGN logo. He is the Angry VideoGame Nerd.... I may become the Angry SharePoint Dev.
@rene I tried editing the Where close voted I as the last one to FIRST ONE, but I suck.. tried lots of different things as you can see here data.stackexchange.com/users/12986/user000000 . But yea, please don't do it if your not interested in seeing the questions you closed in which you were the first cv.
@user0000000 better raise a custom flag on one of the comments or on the answer, mods don't always check to see if there are more comments to be deleted.
Besides that this is close to a link-only answer, the question is tagged with c# so providing a link to a javascript regex seems weird and on top of that we have a popular answer for parsing html with regex. — rene29 secs ago
I think the browser choice screen is useless. Either you know what you're doing and you'll install the browser of your choice regardless of having that screen, or you don't know what you're doing and your son/grandson/go-to IT guy will make a choice for you.
my grandmother uses Chrome because I told her to, not because the EU gave her a choice
On Stack Overflow I have 585 reputation and on Meta Stack Overflow only 535. It's been like this for half an hour already.
As far as I know reputation, should be the same on both sites, unless I'm missing something?
@bjb "Does not show any research effort" is a valid downvote reason. It appears this user is just hitting one problem after the other, and almost immediately posting them on SO for quick answers.
Rather than...ya know, spending a couple minutes and keystrokes trying to solve his own problem.
Of course, I realize that this happens constantly on SO, and much worse. I was just sharing an example I saw today that bugged me.
Should there be a conical duplicate for "I failed this unreasonable review audit" type questions on Meta SO? I've seen a billion of those questions and the general response seems to be: It sucks, the system's broken, they don't actually mean anything, if you got banned flag down a mod.
The idea is essentially to allow folks to "buy" more influence, but with a dramatically higher cost as your purchase increases. One man one vote is cheap; one man 2 votes is 4x as expensive.
Not saying it's a good idea, but I do see how it relates.
I hope there is a way to distinguish between -- because this is a bit of a flaw in the voting system. Voting without malice should be encouraged, not blocked because people abuse voting.
But of course, I understand that it is difficult to do so.
I would love to say that you should DV all such crap, regardless of how you got to it, but with how serial votes are detected, that is counter productive at this time. — Oded ♦1 min ago
I can't say much about the mod tools with regards to such things, but I can say that it would really be impossible to tell the difference between malice and justice.
Not when printing them on things D: Kinkos charges so much...
Hmm
There has to be a way. It's simply unfair to label it all as serial voting, this being a community driven site, only to say we can't crack down on a user just because sometimes it's voted with malicious intent.
Yes, but just because somebody makes a water bottle explode in a mall, you can't simply ban water bottles. (For the sensitive, I'm referring to a non-lethal explosion by chemical expansion)
Having spent a couple years investigating vote fraud claims, I can safely say that in practice malicious downvoting cases far exceed the "but this guy posted a lot of bad questions and I read all of them".
Anna, you say the malice exceeds the legit -- so why not submit "Serial Vote Claims" so that you can safely, with approval (grumble grumble) vote as needed?
Believe me, if we could come up with a heuristic to figure out when DVs are done on merit and not malice, we would have. Serial voting is a real problem though, and the automated tools to reverse it are needed - yes, it stands in the way of punishing bad contributors in this way, but I'd rather have the former than the latter (at least when it comes to going through the posts of a user).
Don't forget that there are lots of people who can downvote bad stuff - you don't have to do it all yourself.
Scenario: I find a user. I submit to the comminuty [new review section?] "Hey guys, this user has a lot of bad answers. Do you agree? [Community says yes] :vote: [Community says no] :votes will be reversed:
Gauging intent is further challenging. Let's say you downvote all of user's posts. How would you tell, automatically, whether those are because the posts are bad, because the user downvoted one of your posts and you got mad, etc?
or how about, if you upvote a bunch of user's posts... is it because you're a sock-puppet, an excited coworker, or do you simply run into each other a lot in the same tags?
As I said before, establish a relationship tracker (chat replies/pings, question/answer views/votes). I'm sure with that data, you could easily establish grounds for serial upvoting as well.
You appear to be under the impression that we haven't thought about it/don't care or that this whole thing has a simple solution, neither of which is true.
I'll give it some thought, but I'm not the sharpest crayon in the pack. If nobody on Stack has had a good idea, it's definitely not going to come from me.
One more question -- I really don't understand the point of meta.SO vs. meta.SE. Can somebody clarify it to me (if somebody links to the meta page I will grumble)? I have read it, I don't quite get it.
I hope it's changed. I don't really like that part of it. Somebody with 100k rep can have good hax skillz, but can have pretty crappy ideas to the site
Not that reputation means everything, but it does make a biased view point. People tend to trust higher reps (not that they should) but yeah
@RUJordan oh, I see. Better reply to messages (see little arrow appear on the right when hovering a message, next to the flag and star), this way it's chained.
You can have a really good soccer game that's still tied at the end. Nothing wrong with that. Sticking around to watch more people run around for a single goal isn't an improvement.
On Stack Overflow I have 585 reputation and on Meta Stack Overflow only 535. It's been like this for half an hour already.
As far as I know reputation, should be the same on both sites, unless I'm missing something?
