Search Results

Search found 1308 results on 53 pages for 'reviews'.

Page 1/53 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How should code reviews be Carried Out?

    - by Graviton
    My previous question has to do with how to advance code reviews among the developers. Here I am interested in how a code review session should be carried out, so that both the reviewer and reviewed are feeling comfortable with it. I have done some code reviews before and the experience has been very unpleasant. My previous manager would come to us --on an ad hoc basis-- and tell us to explain our code to him. Since he wasn't very familiar with the code base, whenever he would ask me to explain my code, I'd find myself spending a huge amount of time explaining the most basic structure of my code. As a result, each review would last much too long, and the process would leave both of us exhausted. Once I was done explaining my work, he would continue by raising issues with it. Most of the issues he raised were cosmetic in nature ( e.g, don't use region for this code block, change the variable name from xxx to yyy even though the later makes even less sense, and so on). After trying this process for few rounds, we found the review session didn't derive much benefits for either of us, and we stopped. How would you go about making each code review a natural, enjoyable, thought stimulating, bug-fixing and mutual-learning experience? Also, how frequently you do your code reviews - as soon as the code is checked in? Do you allocate a fixed time every week to do this? What are the guidelines that you follow during your code reviews?

    Read the article

  • Canonicalization of single, small pages like reviews or product categories [SEO]

    - by Valorized
    In general I pretty much like the idea of canonicalization. And in most cases, Google explains possible procedures in a clear way. For example: If I have duplicates because of parameters (eg: &sort=desc) it's clear to use the canonical for the site, provided the within the head-tag. However I'm wondering how to handle "small - no to say thin content - sites". What's my definition of a small site? An Example: On one of my main sites, we use a directory based url-structure. Let's see: example.com/ (root) example.com/category-abc/ example.com/category-abc/produkt-xy/ Moreover we provide on page, that includes all products example.com/all-categories/ (lists all products the same way as in the categories) In case of reviews, we use a similar structure: example.com/reviews/product-xy/ shows all review for one certain product example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ shows one certain review example.com/reviews/ shows all reviews for all products (latest first) Let's make it even more complicated: On every product site, there are the latest 2 reviews at the end of the page. So you see, a lot of potential duplicates. Q1: Should I create canonicals for a: example.com/category-abc/ to example.com/all-categories/ b: example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ to example.com/reviews/product-xy/ or to example.com/review/ or none of them? Q2: Can I link the collection of categories (all-categories/) and collection of all reviews (reviews/ and reviews/product-xy/) to the single category respectively to the single review. Example: example.com/reviews/ includes - let's say - 100 reviews. Can I somehow use a markup that tells search engines: "Hey, wait, you are now looking at a collection of 100 reviews - do not index this collection, you should rather prefer indexing every single review as a single page!". In HTML it might be something like that (which - of course - does not work, it's only to show you what I mean): <div class="review" rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/reviews/product-xz/abc-your-product-is-great/">HERE GOES THE REVIEW</div> Reason: I don't think it is a great user experience if the user searches for "your product is great" and lands on example.com/reviews/ instead of example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/. On the first site, he will have to search and might stop because of frustration. The second result, however, might lead to a conversion. The same applies for categories. If the user is searching for category-Z, he might land on the all-categories page and he has to scroll down to the (last) category, to find what he searched for (Z). So what's best practice? What should I do? Thank you for your help!

    Read the article

  • Canonicalization of single, small pages like reviews or product categories

    - by Valorized
    In general I pretty much like the idea of canonicalization. And in most cases, Google explains possible procedures in a clear way. For example: If I have duplicates because of parameters (eg: &sort=desc) it's clear to use the canonical for the site, provided the within the head-tag. However I'm wondering how to handle "small - no to say thin content - sites". What's my definition of a small site? An Example: On one of my main sites, we use a directory based url-structure. Let's see: example.com/ (root) example.com/category-abc/ example.com/category-abc/produkt-xy/ Moreover we provide on page, that includes all products example.com/all-categories/ (lists all products the same way as in the categories) In case of reviews, we use a similar structure: example.com/reviews/product-xy/ shows all review for one certain product example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ shows one certain review example.com/reviews/ shows all reviews for all products (latest first) Let's make it even more complicated: On every product site, there are the latest 2 reviews at the end of the page. So you see, a lot of potential duplicates. Q1: Should I create canonicals for a: example.com/category-abc/ to example.com/all-categories/ b: example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ to example.com/reviews/product-xy/ or to example.com/review/ or none of them? Q2: Can I link the collection of categories (all-categories/) and collection of all reviews (reviews/ and reviews/product-xy/) to the single category respectively to the single review. Example: example.com/reviews/ includes - let's say - 100 reviews. Can I somehow use a markup that tells search engines: "Hey, wait, you are now looking at a collection of 100 reviews - do not index this collection, you should rather prefer indexing every single review as a single page!". In HTML it might be something like that (which - of course - does not work, it's only to show you what I mean): <div class="review" rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/reviews/product-xz/abc-your-product-is-great/"> HERE GOES THE REVIEW</div> Reason: I don't think it is a great user experience if the user searches for "your product is great" and lands on example.com/reviews/ instead of example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/. On the first site, he will have to search and might stop because of frustration. The second result, however, might lead to a conversion. The same applies for categories. If the user is searching for category-Z, he might land on the all-categories page and he has to scroll down to the (last) category, to find what he searched for (Z). So what's best practice? What should I do?

    Read the article

  • How important is positive feedback in code reviews?

    - by c_maker
    Is it important to point out the good parts of the code during a code review and the reasons why it is good? Positive feedback might be just as useful for the developer being reviewed and for the others that participate in the review. We are doing reviews using an online tool, so developers can open reviews for their committed code and others can review their code within a given time period (e.g. 1 week). Others can comment on the code or other reviewer's comments. Should there be a balance between positive and negative feedback?

    Read the article

  • Questions about Code Reviews

    - by bamboocha
    My team plans to do Code Review and asked me to make a concept what and how we are going to make our Code Reviews. We are a little group of 6 team members. We use an SVN repository and write programs in different languages (mostly: VB.NET, Java, C#), but the reviews should be also possible for others, yet not defined. Basically I am asking you, how are you doing it, to be more precise I made a list of some questions I got: 1. Peer Meetings vs Ticket System? Would you tend to do meetings with all members, rather than something like a ticket system, where the developer can add a new code change and some or all need to check and approve it? 1. What tool? I made some researches on my own and it showed that Rietveld seems to be the program to use for non-git solutions. Do you agree/disagree and why? 2. A good workflow to follow? 3. Are there good ways to minimize the effort for those meetings even more? 4. What are good questions, every code reviewer should follow? I already made a list with some questions, what would you append/remove? are there any magic numbers in the code? do all variable and method names make sense and are easily understandable? are all querys using prepared statement? are all objects disposed/closed when they are not needed anymore? 5. What are your general experiences with it? What's important? Things to consider/prevent/watch out?

    Read the article

  • 5 Best WordPress Themes for creating Reviews & Ratings Websites

    - by Aditi
    WordPress CMS is so powerful, we have seen variety of websites being made with WordPress. It is not limited to just blogging. You can build robust community driven websites as well. Recently I cam across these themes, as I was trying to build such a similar reviews, ratings community website. I have reviewed all of [...] Related posts:10+ Best Fashion WordPress Themes 21+ WordPress Photo Blog & Portfolio Themes 12 Best WordPress Themes for Church

    Read the article

  • How to organize continuous code reviews?

    - by yegor256
    We develop in branches. Before a branch gets merged into the main stream (master branch) we review the changes made, by creating a new "code review" in Crucible. Reviewers add their comments to the code review and the ticket/branch gets bounced back to the author, if it needs to be improved. After the improvements are made we get this branch/ticket again back to the code review. We again create a new code review in Crucible, loosing all previously made comments. We simply start from scratch. It's a big waste of time. Do you know any tools that support a continuous mode for reviews, where we don't need to start from scratch every time, but can pick up the comments already made (re-start the review, so to speak).

    Read the article

  • HTG Reviews the CODE Keyboard: Old School Construction Meets Modern Amenities

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    There’s nothing quite as satisfying as the smooth and crisp action of a well built keyboard. If you’re tired of  mushy keys and cheap feeling keyboards, a well-constructed mechanical keyboard is a welcome respite from the $10 keyboard that came with your computer. Read on as we put the CODE mechanical keyboard through the paces. What is the CODE Keyboard? The CODE keyboard is a collaboration between manufacturer WASD Keyboards and Jeff Atwood of Coding Horror (the guy behind the Stack Exchange network and Discourse forum software). Atwood’s focus was incorporating the best of traditional mechanical keyboards and the best of modern keyboard usability improvements. In his own words: The world is awash in terrible, crappy, no name how-cheap-can-we-make-it keyboards. There are a few dozen better mechanical keyboard options out there. I’ve owned and used at least six different expensive mechanical keyboards, but I wasn’t satisfied with any of them, either: they didn’t have backlighting, were ugly, had terrible design, or were missing basic functions like media keys. That’s why I originally contacted Weyman Kwong of WASD Keyboards way back in early 2012. I told him that the state of keyboards was unacceptable to me as a geek, and I proposed a partnership wherein I was willing to work with him to do whatever it takes to produce a truly great mechanical keyboard. Even the ardent skeptic who questions whether Atwood has indeed created a truly great mechanical keyboard certainly can’t argue with the position he starts from: there are so many agonizingly crappy keyboards out there. Even worse, in our opinion, is that unless you’re a typist of a certain vintage there’s a good chance you’ve never actually typed on a really nice keyboard. Those that didn’t start using computers until the mid-to-late 1990s most likely have always typed on modern mushy-key keyboards and never known the joy of typing on a really responsive and crisp mechanical keyboard. Is our preference for and love of mechanical keyboards shining through here? Good. We’re not even going to try and hide it. So where does the CODE keyboard stack up in pantheon of keyboards? Read on as we walk you through the simple setup and our experience using the CODE. Setting Up the CODE Keyboard Although the setup of the CODE keyboard is essentially plug and play, there are two distinct setup steps that you likely haven’t had to perform on a previous keyboard. Both highlight the degree of care put into the keyboard and the amount of customization available. Inside the box you’ll find the keyboard, a micro USB cable, a USB-to-PS2 adapter, and a tool which you may be unfamiliar with: a key puller. We’ll return to the key puller in a moment. Unlike the majority of keyboards on the market, the cord isn’t permanently affixed to the keyboard. What does this mean for you? Aside from the obvious need to plug it in yourself, it makes it dead simple to repair your own keyboard cord if it gets attacked by a pet, mangled in a mechanism on your desk, or otherwise damaged. It also makes it easy to take advantage of the cable routing channels in on the underside of the keyboard to  route your cable exactly where you want it. While we’re staring at the underside of the keyboard, check out those beefy rubber feet. By peripherals standards they’re huge (and there is six instead of the usual four). Once you plunk the keyboard down where you want it, it might as well be glued down the rubber feet work so well. After you’ve secured the cable and adjusted it to your liking, there is one more task  before plug the keyboard into the computer. On the bottom left-hand side of the keyboard, you’ll find a small recess in the plastic with some dip switches inside: The dip switches are there to switch hardware functions for various operating systems, keyboard layouts, and to enable/disable function keys. By toggling the dip switches you can change the keyboard from QWERTY mode to Dvorak mode and Colemak mode, the two most popular alternative keyboard configurations. You can also use the switches to enable Mac-functionality (for Command/Option keys). One of our favorite little toggles is the SW3 dip switch: you can disable the Caps Lock key; goodbye accidentally pressing Caps when you mean to press Shift. You can review the entire dip switch configuration chart here. The quick-start for Windows users is simple: double check that all the switches are in the off position (as seen in the photo above) and then simply toggle SW6 on to enable the media and backlighting function keys (this turns the menu key on the keyboard into a function key as typically found on laptop keyboards). After adjusting the dip switches to your liking, plug the keyboard into an open USB port on your computer (or into your PS/2 port using the included adapter). Design, Layout, and Backlighting The CODE keyboard comes in two flavors, a traditional 87-key layout (no number pad) and a traditional 104-key layout (number pad on the right hand side). We identify the layout as traditional because, despite some modern trapping and sneaky shortcuts, the actual form factor of the keyboard from the shape of the keys to the spacing and position is as classic as it comes. You won’t have to learn a new keyboard layout and spend weeks conditioning yourself to a smaller than normal backspace key or a PgUp/PgDn pair in an unconventional location. Just because the keyboard is very conventional in layout, however, doesn’t mean you’ll be missing modern amenities like media-control keys. The following additional functions are hidden in the F11, F12, Pause button, and the 2×6 grid formed by the Insert and Delete rows: keyboard illumination brightness, keyboard illumination on/off, mute, and then the typical play/pause, forward/backward, stop, and volume +/- in Insert and Delete rows, respectively. While we weren’t sure what we’d think of the function-key system at first (especially after retiring a Microsoft Sidewinder keyboard with a huge and easily accessible volume knob on it), it took less than a day for us to adapt to using the Fn key, located next to the right Ctrl key, to adjust our media playback on the fly. Keyboard backlighting is a largely hit-or-miss undertaking but the CODE keyboard nails it. Not only does it have pleasant and easily adjustable through-the-keys lighting but the key switches the keys themselves are attached to are mounted to a steel plate with white paint. Enough of the light reflects off the interior cavity of the keys and then diffuses across the white plate to provide nice even illumination in between the keys. Highlighting the steel plate beneath the keys brings us to the actual construction of the keyboard. It’s rock solid. The 87-key model, the one we tested, is 2.0 pounds. The 104-key is nearly a half pound heavier at 2.42 pounds. Between the steel plate, the extra-thick PCB board beneath the steel plate, and the thick ABS plastic housing, the keyboard has very solid feel to it. Combine that heft with the previously mentioned thick rubber feet and you have a tank-like keyboard that won’t budge a millimeter during normal use. Examining The Keys This is the section of the review the hardcore typists and keyboard ninjas have been waiting for. We’ve looked at the layout of the keyboard, we’ve looked at the general construction of it, but what about the actual keys? There are a wide variety of keyboard construction techniques but the vast majority of modern keyboards use a rubber-dome construction. The key is floated in a plastic frame over a rubber membrane that has a little rubber dome for each key. The press of the physical key compresses the rubber dome downwards and a little bit of conductive material on the inside of the dome’s apex connects with the circuit board. Despite the near ubiquity of the design, many people dislike it. The principal complaint is that dome keyboards require a complete compression to register a keystroke; keyboard designers and enthusiasts refer to this as “bottoming out”. In other words, the register the “b” key, you need to completely press that key down. As such it slows you down and requires additional pressure and movement that, over the course of tens of thousands of keystrokes, adds up to a whole lot of wasted time and fatigue. The CODE keyboard features key switches manufactured by Cherry, a company that has manufactured key switches since the 1960s. Specifically the CODE features Cherry MX Clear switches. These switches feature the same classic design of the other Cherry switches (such as the MX Blue and Brown switch lineups) but they are significantly quieter (yes this is a mechanical keyboard, but no, your neighbors won’t think you’re firing off a machine gun) as they lack the audible click found in most Cherry switches. This isn’t to say that they keyboard doesn’t have a nice audible key press sound when the key is fully depressed, but that the key mechanism isn’t doesn’t create a loud click sound when triggered. One of the great features of the Cherry MX clear is a tactile “bump” that indicates the key has been compressed enough to register the stroke. For touch typists the very subtle tactile feedback is a great indicator that you can move on to the next stroke and provides a welcome speed boost. Even if you’re not trying to break any word-per-minute records, that little bump when pressing the key is satisfying. The Cherry key switches, in addition to providing a much more pleasant typing experience, are also significantly more durable than dome-style key switch. Rubber dome switch membrane keyboards are typically rated for 5-10 million contacts whereas the Cherry mechanical switches are rated for 50 million contacts. You’d have to write the next War and Peace  and follow that up with A Tale of Two Cities: Zombie Edition, and then turn around and transcribe them both into a dozen different languages to even begin putting a tiny dent in the lifecycle of this keyboard. So what do the switches look like under the classicly styled keys? You can take a look yourself with the included key puller. Slide the loop between the keys and then gently beneath the key you wish to remove: Wiggle the key puller gently back and forth while exerting a gentle upward pressure to pop the key off; You can repeat the process for every key, if you ever find yourself needing to extract piles of cat hair, Cheeto dust, or other foreign objects from your keyboard. There it is, the naked switch, the source of that wonderful crisp action with the tactile bump on each keystroke. The last feature worthy of a mention is the N-key rollover functionality of the keyboard. This is a feature you simply won’t find on non-mechanical keyboards and even gaming keyboards typically only have any sort of key roller on the high-frequency keys like WASD. So what is N-key rollover and why do you care? On a typical mass-produced rubber-dome keyboard you cannot simultaneously press more than two keys as the third one doesn’t register. PS/2 keyboards allow for unlimited rollover (in other words you can’t out type the keyboard as all of your keystrokes, no matter how fast, will register); if you use the CODE keyboard with the PS/2 adapter you gain this ability. If you don’t use the PS/2 adapter and use the native USB, you still get 6-key rollover (and the CTRL, ALT, and SHIFT don’t count towards the 6) so realistically you still won’t be able to out type the computer as even the more finger twisting keyboard combos and high speed typing will still fall well within the 6-key rollover. The rollover absolutely doesn’t matter if you’re a slow hunt-and-peck typist, but if you’ve read this far into a keyboard review there’s a good chance that you’re a serious typist and that kind of quality construction and high-number key rollover is a fantastic feature.  The Good, The Bad, and the Verdict We’ve put the CODE keyboard through the paces, we’ve played games with it, typed articles with it, left lengthy comments on Reddit, and otherwise used and abused it like we would any other keyboard. The Good: The construction is rock solid. In an emergency, we’re confident we could use the keyboard as a blunt weapon (and then resume using it later in the day with no ill effect on the keyboard). The Cherry switches are an absolute pleasure to type on; the Clear variety found in the CODE keyboard offer a really nice middle-ground between the gun-shot clack of a louder mechanical switch and the quietness of a lesser-quality dome keyboard without sacrificing quality. Touch typists will love the subtle tactile bump feedback. Dip switch system makes it very easy for users on different systems and with different keyboard layout needs to switch between operating system and keyboard layouts. If you’re investing a chunk of change in a keyboard it’s nice to know you can take it with you to a different operating system or “upgrade” it to a new layout if you decide to take up Dvorak-style typing. The backlighting is perfect. You can adjust it from a barely-visible glow to a blazing light-up-the-room brightness. Whatever your intesity preference, the white-coated steel backplate does a great job diffusing the light between the keys. You can easily remove the keys for cleaning (or to rearrange the letters to support a new keyboard layout). The weight of the unit combined with the extra thick rubber feet keep it planted exactly where you place it on the desk. The Bad: While you’re getting your money’s worth, the $150 price tag is a shock when compared to the $20-60 price tags you find on lower-end keyboards. People used to large dedicated media keys independent of the traditional key layout (such as the large buttons and volume controls found on many modern keyboards) might be off put by the Fn-key style media controls on the CODE. The Verdict: The keyboard is clearly and heavily influenced by the needs of serious typists. Whether you’re a programmer, transcriptionist, or just somebody that wants to leave the lengthiest article comments the Internet has ever seen, the CODE keyboard offers a rock solid typing experience. Yes, $150 isn’t pocket change, but the quality of the CODE keyboard is so high and the typing experience is so enjoyable, you’re easily getting ten times the value you’d get out of purchasing a lesser keyboard. Even compared to other mechanical keyboards on the market, like the Das Keyboard, you’re still getting more for your money as other mechanical keyboards don’t come with the lovely-to-type-on Cherry MX Clear switches, back lighting, and hardware-based operating system keyboard layout switching. If it’s in your budget to upgrade your keyboard (especially if you’ve been slogging along with a low-end rubber-dome keyboard) there’s no good reason to not pickup a CODE keyboard. Key animation courtesy of Geekhack.org user Lethal Squirrel.       

    Read the article

  • Reconciling the Boy Scout Rule and Opportunistic Refactoring with code reviews

    - by t0x1n
    I am a great believer in the Boy Scout Rule: Always check a module in cleaner than when you checked it out." No matter who the original author was, what if we always made some effort, no matter how small, to improve the module. What would be the result? I think if we all followed that simple rule, we'd see the end of the relentless deterioration of our software systems. Instead, our systems would gradually get better and better as they evolved. We'd also see teams caring for the system as a whole, rather than just individuals caring for their own small little part. I am also a great believer in the related idea of Opportunistic Refactoring: Although there are places for some scheduled refactoring efforts, I prefer to encourage refactoring as an opportunistic activity, done whenever and wherever code needs to cleaned up - by whoever. What this means is that at any time someone sees some code that isn't as clear as it should be, they should take the opportunity to fix it right there and then - or at least within a few minutes Particularly note the following excerpt from the refactoring article: I'm wary of any development practices that cause friction for opportunistic refactoring ... My sense is that most teams don't do enough refactoring, so it's important to pay attention to anything that is discouraging people from doing it. To help flush this out be aware of any time you feel discouraged from doing a small refactoring, one that you're sure will only take a minute or two. Any such barrier is a smell that should prompt a conversation. So make a note of the discouragement and bring it up with the team. At the very least it should be discussed during your next retrospective. Where I work, there is one development practice that causes heavy friction - Code Review (CR). Whenever I change anything that's not in the scope of my "assignment" I'm being rebuked by my reviewers that I'm making the change harder to review. This is especially true when refactoring is involved, since it makes "line by line" diff comparison difficult. This approach is the standard here, which means opportunistic refactoring is seldom done, and only "planned" refactoring (which is usually too little, too late) takes place, if at all. I claim that the benefits are worth it, and that 3 reviewers will work a little harder (to actually understand the code before and after, rather than look at the narrow scope of which lines changed - the review itself would be better due to that alone) so that the next 100 developers reading and maintaining the code will benefit. When I present this argument my reviewers, they say they have no problem with my refactoring, as long as it's not in the same CR. However I claim this is a myth: (1) Most of the times you only realize what and how you want to refactor when you're in the midst of your assignment. As Martin Fowler puts it: As you add the functionality, you realize that some code you're adding contains some duplication with some existing code, so you need to refactor the existing code to clean things up... You may get something working, but realize that it would be better if the interaction with existing classes was changed. Take that opportunity to do that before you consider yourself done. (2) Nobody is going to look favorably at you releasing "refactoring" CRs you were not supposed to do. A CR has a certain overhead and your manager doesn't want you to "waste your time" on refactoring. When it's bundled with the change you're supposed to do, this issue is minimized. The issue is exacerbated by Resharper, as each new file I add to the change (and I can't know in advance exactly which files would end up changed) is usually littered with errors and suggestions - most of which are spot on and totally deserve fixing. The end result is that I see horrible code, and I just leave it there. Ironically, I feel that fixing such code not only will not improve my standings, but actually lower them and paint me as the "unfocused" guy who wastes time fixing things nobody cares about instead of doing his job. I feel bad about it because I truly despise bad code and can't stand watching it, let alone call it from my methods! Any thoughts on how I can remedy this situation ?

    Read the article

  • When to do code reviews when doing continuous integration?

    - by SpecialEd
    We are trying to switch to a continuous integration environment but are not sure when to do code reviews. From what I've read of continuous integration, we should be attempting to check in code as often as multiple times a day. I assume, this even means for features that are not yet complete. So the question is, when do we do the code reviews? We can't do it before we check in the code, because that would slow down the process where we will not be able to do daily checkins, let alone multiple checkins per day. Also, if the code we are checking in merely compiles but is not feature complete, doing a code review then is pointless, as most code reviews are best done as the feature is finalized. Does this mean we should do code reviews when a feature is completed, but that unreviewed code will get into the repository?

    Read the article

  • What's the most effective way to perform code reviews?

    - by Paddyslacker
    I've never found the ideal way to perform code reviews and yet often my customers require them. Each customer seems to do them in a different way and I've never felt satisfied in any of them. What has been the most effective way for you to perform code reviews? For example: Is one person regarded as the gatekeeper for quality and reviews the code, or do the team own the standard? Do you do review code as a team exercise using a projector? Is it done in person, via email or using a tool? Do you eschew reviews and use things like pair programming and collective code ownership to ensure code quality?

    Read the article

  • Microdata Without Reviews

    - by user36562
    I have not been able to find a clear issue on omitting reviews from Microdata. I understand that Microdata values for reviews will default to a certain number when omitted, but I was wondering if it would be correct/acceptable to completely omit the review node completely. I can see where reviews and average "star" ratings would be of help to the end user, especially for things like recipes. However, what if there are no reviews for a product or application? To be completely clear - let's isolate this question to only software applications or extensions. What if a particular piece of software or extension was not featured on an "app store" or other site that provided reviews? Wouldn't the formats still be helpful by providing version number, download URL, compatible software - etc? Sorry for the lengthy background, but I just don't understand why it seems that reviews must be part of a Microdata markup. Or, am I wrong in this assumption?

    Read the article

  • Are there code reviews in opensource projects? If so, what tools are used to do this?

    - by monksy
    I know there is a big push for code reviews in commercial development. However, are code reviews used in open source software or is based on trust? If so, then how are they performed? [Is it a delayed commit, "a pre commit environment", is there a tool that allows for the patch to be sent to another dev]? Are there any projects that use code reviews? From my understanding the linux kernel is mostly based around trust of the commitor. MySQL was based on the main author's approval and the performance impact.

    Read the article

  • How to facilitate code reviews in a small team for embedded software?

    - by Adam Lewis
    Short Question Does a cost-effective tool / workflow exist to facilitate code reviews in a small team? More specifically, a small team that relies on post-commit code reviews. Background Our team currently consists of 3 full time and 1 part time software engineers, with plans on hiring more in the near future. Due to our team size and volume of projects we all must juggle, the pre-commit workflow that major tools (such as Review Board and Code Collaborator) use is not obtainable for us right now. The best we can do at the moment is to perform post-commit reviews before major releases or as time permits. Nearly all of our projects are hosted on RepositoryHosting.com (which I highly recommend) and contain a mixture of SVN and GIT repositories. Current Thoughts Since I cannot find a tool that fits our needs right now, I am turning to TRAC that is built into our repository's site. At the moment we use TRAC to file tickets and track milestones, so to me this seems like a natural fit for code review results as well. The direction I am heading in right now is to use a spread sheet(s) to log all of the bugs and comments. Do some macro magic to get it in a format that I can use TRAC's import ticket method and use TRAC's ticketing system to create the action items / bug reports automatically. The auto ticket generation is darn near a must have, adding in bugs and comments one at a time from a web-gui is really painful. Secondary Question If this workflow makes sense, is there a good / standard template to use as a code review log?

    Read the article

  • How to price code reviews to encourage good behavior?

    - by Chris Clark
    I work for a company that has a hosted .net internet application with many clients. Those clients often want to write customizations for our application. We have APIs to hook into the app, but the customizations themselves are written in .net. This is a shared, secure hosting environment and we have to code review these customizations before we can deploy them in our datacenter to ensure that they don't degrade performance, crash our servers, or open any security vulnerabilities. We charge for these code reviews. The current pricing model is simply a function of the number of lines of code. I think this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but primarily because, if we are interested in verifying that the code works as expected, we should be incentivizing good, readable code, not compaction. I would like to propose a pricing model that incorporates some, or all of the following as inputs: Lines of code Cyclomatic complexity Avg function length # of functions Are there any other metrics I should incorporate, or other ideas for how we can reasonably create pricing for code reviews that encourages safe and understandable code?

    Read the article

  • Schema.org for Product Reviews

    - by Lynda
    I have a product reviews on a site and I am adding schema.org markup to the reviews. Here is the code I am using: <div class="blockquote-wrap"> <blockquote itemprop="review" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Review"><span itemprop="reviewBody">Text of the review itself.</span> <cite><span itemprop="author">Author Name</span>, Location of Author</cite> </blockquote> </div> This is all the reviews are. When I test the page using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool I receive this error: Error: Incomplete microdata with schema.org. My question is what data is missing that is required? I don't see which data is required on the Schema.org page for reviews.

    Read the article

  • Customer Reviews on Company Listings [closed]

    - by GSTAR
    I'm not sure if this is the right place but I am after some general advice on a feature I am looking to implement on my website. The website I have is a Wedding Directory. Here, companies can advertise in the form of a directory listing. This listing contains the company details - such as what they do and how you can contact them. There are three packages available - Basic package is free and Silver and Gold packages are charged for. Now in order to further enhance the directory, I want to enable customer reviews for each listing. This is basically whereby customers who have used a particular company's service can write a review (and rate out of 5) of their experience. The dilemma I face is that if customers are to be paying for their listings then surely they will expect to not have content on their listing that would tarnish their reputation (i.e. negative reviews). But at the same time I want to be impartial and help my site visitors to make informed choices on which companies to book when arranging their weddings. Of course I will exercise my ability to remove offensive or fake reviews but I do not want to be removing reviews just to satisfy my clients. Suppose a client pays me a premium fee to have their listing on my front page and at the top of the listings. Now suppose that client gets lost of negative reviews - the fact that they have increased visibility means that they will also get increased bad publicity. This in turn means they won't renew their package and will most likely request the listing to be taken down. So, how can I get the right balance here and keep everyone happy?

    Read the article

  • Can notes/to-dos in code comments sent to code-reviews result in an effective refactoring process?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I want to start/improve a culture of collective code ownership at my company but at a geographically distributed level... I'd say there is some current collective code-ownership mentality, but only at single geographical sites. This is a follow-up to this question: What is the politically correct way of refactoring other's code? I'm just wondering if submitting *just code comments* for code reviews (we have ReviewBoard, possibly upgrading to Crucible) could actually be an effective mechanism to get the conversation started on improving code, without having others feel territorial about their code. For example, if I add: //ToDo: Refactor this code and that code because of reasons X and Y Then, submit it for code review, and it gets accepted... it could be considered as an agreement (which I think is sometimes harder to get with new code up front). At the same time, the author (and others) might have an easier time digesting and accepting the proposal; rejecting a proposal because it might break things will not longer be a valid reason and therefore the fear of making a change is lost... and at the same time, do not invest 10 hours optimizing something that no one thinks it is worth it and opposes to it just out of fear. This is all conjecture, but I'm feeling something like this (submitting refactoring notes in code comments at the code-review process) would work. Has anyone done something like this in practice?, if so, what have been the results?

    Read the article

  • Django 5 star Reviews

    - by firststepofthejourney
    Hello All, I am new to programming and I just jumped in to Django and I need a bit of help. I downloaded the generic reviews model off of Google code and I have no clue how to implement it. Can anyone pass along some guidance on how to make this work with a 5 star ratings system? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Excel-based Performance Reviews transformed into Web Application for Performance Management

    - by Webgui
    HR TMS provides enterprise talent management solutions for healthcare, retail and corporate customers, focusing on performance management, compensation management and succession planning. As the competency of nurses and other healthcare workers is critical, the government, via the Joint Commission (JCAHO), tightly monitors their performances. On a regular basis, accredited healthcare organizations are required to review employee performance using a complex set of position dependent job descriptions and competencies. Middlesex Hospital managed their performance reviews for 2500 employees manually with Excel spreadsheets. This was a labor intensive process that proved to be error prone and difficult to manage. Reviews were not always where they belonged and the job descriptions and competencies for healthcare workers were difficult to keep accurate and up to date. As a result, when the Joint Commission visited and requested to see specific review documentation, there was intense stress. Middlesex Hospital needed to automate their review process, pull in the position information from those spreadsheets and be able to deliver reviews online. Users needed to have online access to those reviews from a standard browser. Although the manual system had its issues, it did have the advantage of being very comprehensive and familiar to users. The decision was made to provide a web-based solution that leveraged the look and feel of those spreadsheets in order to insure user acceptance of the system and minimize the training needed. Read the full article here >

    Read the article

  • Hot to get website/product reviews reflected in Google's search results using review-aggregate format

    - by BasP
    I am managing a website called Rent A Boat Amsterdam. We have a system that gathers reviews from people that have used our services and that publishes these customer reviews making them available for all website visitors. When these customer reviews are published we have placed them within the appropriate tags according to the guidelines set by Google, which you can find here. An example looks like this: <li class="" style="clear:both;"> <div class="hreview"> <div class="item" style="display:none;"><span class="fn">Boatname</span></div> <div style="border:1px solid #DEDEDE; background-color:#D9FFD4; margin:0 10px 10px 0; float:left; text-align:center; padding:10px; height:50px; width:70px;"><h1><span class="rating">10</span></h1>9-Jun-2010</div> <div> <div class="description"><p>Great canal Cruise!</p></div> <p class="reviewer vcard"><strong><span class="fn">First name Last name</span></strong></p> </div> </div> We have implemented these tags a couple of months ago, but there are no visible results in the Google SERP's. This whilst I had expected to find the reviews / ratings displayed similar to: Is anyone familiar with this topic and able to help me find the answer to the question why the review-aggregate format doesn't seem to have the desired effect?

    Read the article

  • Is it common practice to hire third parties to do code reviews for contractors?

    - by blueberryfields
    I recently observed some contract offers which included a "code review by third party" clause - the contract would not pay out fully until the code review was completed and it received a pass. I was surprised, especially considering that these were fairly simple, and small-scale contracts (churning out vanity apps for the iPhone). Is this kind of third-party code review a common thing to run into when contracting out as a programmer?

    Read the article

  • references for Amazon webservices on using User reviews on its products in website [closed]

    - by poddroid
    Want to utilise the Amazon user reviews on different products in my website. For this I need the user reviews and user profile details. I thought Amazon exposed some webservices for this. I Googled for some documentation on these webservices. But not successful. And some links that I got are always pointing to AWS cloud services. Some one please provide references for these webservice documentation please. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Ethics of soliciting App store app reviews?

    - by hotpaw2
    I see more than a few developers soliciting 5-star ratings and good reviews for their App store apps, in their blogs, websites, app store descriptions, even dialogs that pop-up in the app after you've used them for awhile. What do people consider to be the ethical guidelines regarding such review and ratings solicitations? What's over the line? (Besides obviously evil stuff, such as paying to have someone forge multiple negative reviews about your competitor's apps, etc.)

    Read the article

  • Microformats, Reviews and Duplicate Content

    - by Nicholas
    Let's say I have a site that sells widgets, and the URL structure is like so: /[type-of-widget]/[sub-type]/[widget-name]/ So, a URL for a widget might be: /screwdrivers/philips-screwdrivers/acme-big-screwdriver/ We show reviews on the widget page, and use the appropriate microformat data so Google knows it's a review, etc. Now, what if I want to show random reviews in the "sub-type" and "type-of-widget" landing pages? Will Google ding me for duplicate content, or is it smart enough to know (based on microformat data/etc.) that this is not duplicate content?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >