Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

RFC: "Nodes to consider" - sort contents?

by wjw (Deacon)
on Sep 29, 2013 at 05:35 UTC ( #1056184=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Nodes to Consider

General:I have just recently started actively indulging in my civic responsibility by going to the "Nodes for consideration" and tossing in my two cents worth.

I thought it might be useful to be able to sort the section entries by those that I have already votes on as compared to those I have not, putting those that I have not at the top so that they are readily available, and those that I have towards the bottom.

Proposal:Sort of the work to do first, and the work done last.

(I did do a super search to see if this had been suggested before, but did not find this issue addressed as far back as 2004.)

Justification:

  • My thinking is that (assuming the results come from a DB) this would be a simple addition of an "order by" in the query.

    (I did also look around for an existing way to "personalize" the display of this section, no luck. So if I missed it, please let me know.)

  • Gives the advantage of getting to the work to do first, without wading through the work that has been done already

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and do educate me if this seems foolish.


Suggestions by others:
  • A good idea added by Athanasius below - Add "submit" to top of page - ...Thanks!
  • kcott pointed out that it was unclear whether or not I was asking for considerations to be broken out into their originating sections. For clarification: I am not interested in that. Only that the things to be done come prior to the things that have already been done. Thanks kcott for pointing that out!
  • ambrus asked that the title be change to correctly identify the subject(Also added to the text of the node). Thanks ambrus! Done.
  • Perlbotics pointed out the following node which makes for a substantial improvement "Nodes To Consider" - Hide Nodes Already Voted (CSS)
    Thanks much Perlbotics!
    I still stand by the sorting idea. davies points out some of the reasons in Re^2: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?

Update:(second update to clean up a damned closing tag)

So, It has been a while and I think anyone who was interested commented. Thanks much for that. In the mean time, I have learned a bit due to some of those comments and because I spent more time on the site. I can see that the suggestion has limited value relative to other issues at the site. On the other hand, like I said, I certainly learned along the way.

I appreciate the feedback and the patience of those that have been about the place for a while and am satisfied.

'nough said on this subject! :-)

Next pint of ale is on me...

  • ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
  • ..by my will, and by will alone.. I set my mind in motion

Comment on RFC: "Nodes to consider" - sort contents?
Re: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?
by Athanasius (Prior) on Sep 29, 2013 at 05:44 UTC

    I heartily endorse this proposal.

    But for this change to be really useful, the submit button will also need to be moved (or duplicated) to the top of the screen (i.e., immediately before the nodes to be considered).

    Athanasius <°(((><contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

Re: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?
by kcott (Abbot) on Sep 29, 2013 at 08:04 UTC

    G'day wjw,

    I see you have recently attained Level 9: Friar: congratulations!

    This is the minimum level at which you can consider nodes or vote on Nodes to consider. You've started to do this, which is good.

    It occurs to me that you've perhaps been presented with some dozens of considerations; possibly these span several pages; and generally it's a pain to continually scroll through pages and change pages to keep track of the considerations you have, and haven't, voted on.

    Items are added to the Nodes to consider page in the chronological order of consideration; not the order in which the nodes were posted. For instance, we currently have this order of considerations (date of node creation shown):

    Sep 27, 2013 at 04:26 EST ... 2 in order ... Sep 25, 2013 at 20:46 EST Sep 15, 2013 at 13:24 EST Sep 18, 2013 at 06:35 EST ... more in order ...

    [Those are times in my locale. What you see will be different (15 hours earlier?) but the order should still be the same.]

    What this means, is that voting on everything you're initially presented with, is a one-off task. Once completed, new considerations will be added to the top, so all considerations you haven't voted on will be at the top. I think that is exactly what you were asking for: "... putting those that I have not at the top so that they are readily available, and those that I have towards the bottom.".

    I did notice you said "section entries". I've assumed by that you mean the individual parts with the node details, consideration text and voting radiobuttons. If you were talking about sorting SOPW section considerations, Meditation sections considerations, etc. into separate lists, I would be against that as I'd consider it to be pointless work with no benefit I can see. I suspect that's not what you meant, but a clarification would be good.

    -- Ken

      Thanks for the input kcott. I did in fact mean what you suspect in that I really don't care from which section a given consideration originated. The idea is that I see what I have to do first, and what I have done later.

      The point you make about the work load reducing is a good one. Unfortunately, I am in a situation where I may be away for some time and unable to contribute as consistently as I would like, which means the work may pile up on occasion.

      I will make the clarification in the original post. Thanks again for pointing that out...

      • ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
      • ..by my will, and by will alone.. I set my mind in motion

      While your analysis is accurate, it ignores some cases. Some considerations require more work than others. For example, editing to add code tags is something I will judge from the consideration page alone. Editing to reparent a node requires me to look more deeply. I therefore do all the "obvious" considerations first and then return to the ones that need more work. Now, if one of those "obvious" ones uses pre tags or needs readmore tags, having them repeated, even though they are no longer nodes requiring my consideration, makes my work harder as certain things can ruin the format of the page. I agree with both the OP and the suggestion that submit buttons be more liberally distributed. What I can't guess is how much work this change would require, but nonetheless I will say "thank you" in advance to whoever does the work.

      Regards,

      John Davies

Re: RFC: "Nodes to consider" - sort contents?
by Anonymous Monk on Sep 29, 2013 at 12:46 UTC
    Simply if enough people do it, consideration is not an onerous chore. I doubt it needs much if any re-coding, just more participation. "Consider considering..."
      I appreciate the point.

      Still, I stand by the suggestion I made.

      Thanks for the feedback!

      • ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
      • ..by my will, and by will alone.. I set my mind in motion

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1056184]
Front-paged by Athanasius
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-07-11 08:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    When choosing user names for websites, I prefer to use:








    Results (220 votes), past polls