Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

On silently moving posts

by flowdy (Scribe)
on Feb 21, 2016 at 12:21 UTC ( #1155745=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Hi!

I am surprised to find my recent posting (originally in CUfP) approved in Meditations. After another read of the descriptions of both sections, it is okay for me, at least since my contribution does not contain code but is only an announcement. What if I had included short test scripts for a naive approach to the outlined problem and another according one for my elaboration?

What I have missed, however, was a notification, so I would not have been afraid at first that my posting might be deleted. In my case, the CUfP section description reads like '... or full-blown webapps', so it was not entirely wrong there.

Would it be too hard for moderators to drop a note to a monk on approving a node in a section different from the monk's choice?

flowdy ;-)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: On silently moving posts
by kcott (Chancellor) on Feb 22, 2016 at 03:32 UTC

    G'day flowdy,

    Firstly, it's important to understand that moving and approving nodes are two entirely separate operations. They cannot be done together.

    • Whoever moved your post may not be the same person who approved it.
    • Whoever approved your post may not have known that it had been previously moved.

    Here's what the Janitors' Guidelines say (in part) under "Moving posts":

    "Note that you must never attempt to move and approve a node in the same step! Or even two steps!"

    Armed with this information you can probably now answer the question for yourself:

    • Q. Would it be too hard ...?
    • A. It may be impossible.

    Whenever I move a post, I normally /msg the OP to this effect: I do this as a courtesy; it is not a requirement. I never advise OPs of node approval.

    Finally, please consider the wording, and hence the tone, of your questions. Something like "Would it be too hard for moderators ...?" rather suggests that you think that moderators are lazy. Of course, that may not have been your intent at all; however, to demonstate the point, consider this:

    "Would it be too hard for you to post a link to the node you're commenting on?"

    Compared to this:

    "Please provide a link to the node you're commenting on."

    Both convey much the same information, i.e. you've failed to tell us what post you're referring to; however, the former has a nasty undertone whilst the latter is a polite request.

    — Ken

      Finally, please consider the wording, and hence the tone, of your questions. Something like "Would it be too hard for moderators ...?" rather suggests that you think that moderators are lazy.

      Thanks for the hint, I appreciate it much because I am non-native speaker of English. Indeed I have not intended a negative tone.

      (pat|len)ience stay with us,
      flowdy

        OTOH, as the person who would probably be the one to implement this feature, I did not get any negative undertone from your specific wording at all. "Would it be too hard" is an absolutely legitimate question to ask of those who would know whether something might be too hard.

        I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Re: On silently moving posts
by Discipulus (Monsignor) on Feb 21, 2016 at 23:14 UTC
    There are, imho, two distintinct parts of the matter: first the possibility to be msged when one post is moved from a section to another (not when is simply moderated, that normally just means approved): we know this is done when a post is reaped as wisely LanX noted. It seems to me at least a very reasonable thing. That said the interface to our beloved site is little static, ironically as static as static were rules of monastic orders. Common sense from people generally compensate the interface's lacks and at the end we can live also without the change to the site that repetedly had come out during the years, with different level of consensus

    The second part of the matter is, in my personal opinion, that the move was wrong in this case. You annonced a use for Perl, probably cool somehow (no irony at all, i posted in that section code that stressed the monk's patience, many times).
    If i remember correctly is not so uncommon to see just announcement of code in CUFP. I think i'm the last one used to publish code exclusively on PM. We are in 2016 after all.
    You have wrote perl code, you have put it on a public repository, you have arranged a website to focalize the project.. for my standards this sounds cool enough.

    That said, there is nothing bad in PM's Meditation and your's it is okay for me keep you away from any polemic note. So for me you are completely right.

    L*

    There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
    Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.
Re: On silently moving posts
by LanX (Bishop) on Feb 21, 2016 at 15:15 UTC
    > Would it be too hard for moderators to drop a note to a monk on approving a node in a section different from the monk's choice?

    Yes "it's too hard", because it's not done by a little group of "moderators".

    From a certain level on every monk° has access to the Approval Nodelet.

    I agree that moving is confusing for new monks, I remember the first time it happened to me.

    You might phrase a feature request that the OP is automatically messaged and / or info gets attached to a moved note.

    But I'm not optimistic this might happen soon.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

    update
    °) You might wanna count friars or higher in Number of Monks by Level

      In fact, why is the owner of a node not notified whenever any kind of change is made to it by another user? This would be pretty easy to implement.

      Update: Done. :-)

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
        Do I want my mailbox filled with approval or frontage messages? Not sure...

        You are welcome to implement this, but you should anticipate the outcry of people who want to filter those messages.

        btw reaped posts are notified.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
        Je suis Charlie!

        There are quite a few Monasteries with many more zombies skeletons in the dungeon crypt, for instance: Sedlec ossuary (Czech Republic).

        Once it was considered ornamentation in the spirit of memento mori ;-)

        (I dug up the links because you mentioned having 'zombies in a dungeon' in an earlier version of your post)

      I'm not optimistic this might happen soon.

      Oh ye of little faith... ;-)

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Re: On silently moving posts (tl;dr)
by Anonymous Monk on Feb 21, 2016 at 23:26 UTC

    I am surprised to find my recent posting (originally in CUfP) approved in Meditations.

    yeah, everybody makes mistake, even monks for over 10 years

    if you explained in the first sentence that you wrote new perl software

    or if that backstory was in readmore tags,

    it might have been easier to see your software announcment belongs in CUFP more than Meditations

    Both issues can be fixed , one with an /edit and the other with a /msg janitors

      Yes, I could reduce my node to the essential info and links and, indeed, I now regret not having considered that more carefully prior to posting. But again, it is okay for me to see my text in Meditation. Of course the janitors may want to offer me reversion of the move after some cutback on my part, because for them it might not be that ideal either. Anyway, the backstory fits well in my blog too, so I've copied it there notwithstanding.

        I would recommend that you read again the descriptions at the top of Cool Uses For Perl and Meditations. If those seem unclear (and I would certainly concur that they do), look at the most recent few dozen posts in both sections for patterns for precedent.

        CUFP is now the section for posting code (not including the just-for-fun sections Obfu and Perl Poetry). I moved your post to Meditations because it contains 99% prose, and 1% links to off-site code. IMHO, it is clearly outside the spec for CUFP. It might be appropriate for Perl News.

        I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1155745]
Approved by davies
help
Chatterbox?
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (6)
As of 2017-10-19 07:51 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My fridge is mostly full of:

















    Results (252 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?