Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?

by kcott (Abbot)
on Sep 29, 2013 at 08:04 UTC ( #1056188=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to RFC: "Nodes to consider" - sort contents?

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


Comment on Re: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?
Download Code
Re^2: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?
by wjw (Deacon) on Sep 29, 2013 at 10:12 UTC
    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
Re^2: RFC: "Nodes for consideration" - sort contents?
by davies (Vicar) on Sep 29, 2013 at 12:13 UTC

    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

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1056188]
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 2014-09-18 10:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (111 votes), past polls