Skip to main content

Timeline for Is it too easy getting upvotes?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:41 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
Aug 15, 2014 at 12:46 comment added Pimgd ... I dunno, it's the english equivalent of "CODE"
Aug 15, 2014 at 12:45 comment added rolfl Mod @Pimgd - i suggest that both posts are useful, and insightful. Both would get my upvote. Both constitute a valuable review.
Aug 15, 2014 at 12:41 comment added Pimgd Expanding on this: Example: Post A points out a unsigned/signed mismatch in the code, and then explains in great detail the risks of mismatching signed and unsigned integers, referencing official documentation and explaining the performance issues behind it. Post B says "you've got naming issues, it should be named for what it is or does, you've got too much comments in your code, function abc should be split, functions b_1, b_2 and b_3 should be combined to to function b(int num). Post A is well researched and useful. Post B is not. Post A helps. Post B says "your code is wrong!"
Aug 15, 2014 at 1:58 comment added rolfl Mod @hichris123 - I expect that if a post, to you, is "helpful, interesting, and well-researched", that it would not, from your perspective, be "lacking in details". If you are neither swayed positively, nor negatively with an answer, then don't vote. I am simply suggesting that you vote on the merits of the answer, not on the relative merits of one answer verses another.
Aug 15, 2014 at 1:10 comment added hichris123 I wouldn't agree with all of this. If one answer is clearly lacking in details, but is "helpful, interesting, and well-researched"... should you upvote it?
Aug 14, 2014 at 17:59 history edited rolflMod CC BY-SA 3.0
emphasis on that's!
Aug 14, 2014 at 17:53 history edited JamalMod CC BY-SA 3.0
added 2 characters in body
Aug 14, 2014 at 17:45 vote accept IEatBagels
Aug 14, 2014 at 17:38 history answered rolflMod CC BY-SA 3.0