Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.

by jdporter (Canon)
on Jul 18, 2017 at 17:04 UTC ( #1195353=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.

Thanks to you for sparking this discussion. Here are my thoughts, in semi-digested bullet form. :-)

  • We're talking about how to handle nodes which are deemed by consensus to be "bad", content-wise.
  • The concern is primarily about "protecting" newbs from that content.
  • Actually modifying (e.g. redacting) node contents, like is done with reaped nodes, is not a good idea.
  • The solution, whatever it is, should be targeted primarily, if not solely, at Anonymous Monk, because that affects how the site's contents get indexed by search engines, as well as what casual visitors see.
  • The consensus should be determined by the node's actual rep, compared against some threshold. I'd propose that that threshold be a simple hard-coded number like -10.
  • Such nodes could be "hidden" in some way. The model I think is close is the one we use for hiding nodes "below your chosen depth" in comment threads. (The "Replies text depth" in User Settings.)
  • A human user, including Anonymous Monk, should be able to reveal the node by clicking a button/link. The way we do this should thwart robots from doing the same.
  • Logged-in users should be able to use CSS to implement their solution of choice.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by Your Mother (Chancellor) on Jul 18, 2017 at 17:51 UTC

    Seems close to perfect to me. The hard-coded number should have a ratio consideration still though. A node with 100, or even just 40, upvotes and 10 downvotes is likely valuable/important, just contentious for whatever reason. So Id propose 4:1 ratio only checked when -10 is reached. Even 3:1 might be fine, for a simple super-majority.

      I'm talking about actual rep. So a node with 40 upvotes and 10 downvotes has a rep of +30.

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

        ++ Better still.

        One still needs a ratio or somehow more elaborate heuristic.

        A disputed post with +15 -20 is very different from +0 -5

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

Re^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Jul 18, 2017 at 18:18 UTC

    FWIW: I concur.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit
Re^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by Discipulus (Monsignor) on Jul 19, 2017 at 11:28 UTC
    I approve!

    PS we want to make a poll about?



    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^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by marto (Bishop) on Jul 19, 2017 at 08:51 UTC

    Hi jdporter, this solution sounds ideal. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Re^2: Feature: Auto hide. Change: show node vote counts to all, not just logged in users.
by oiskuu (Hermit) on Jul 26, 2017 at 18:56 UTC

    Not having read the whole thread (and sorry about the late response), but here my thoughts anyway.

    • The idea is to put even more weight behind the votes, without working on the vote quality? Hm.
    • So a decision was made, that preference is given to information folding instead of presentation choices ((de-)emphasis, etc.)?
    • A community building effort? Consensus building effort? Rose-tinted glasses for the outside view? Consensus building can be good or it can be bad. Community building can be good or it can be bad. (Walled-garden aspect and so on).
    • Slowly but surely, in little baby-steps, the Anonymonk seems to get marginalised. There's a certain monk who has advocated for outright removal of the Anonymonk. I wonder if he gets what he wants, in the end?
    • Hm. Could it be that the certain monk is a manufactured entity, the arch-enemy figure for the community cinematic experience? Like paco was the content seed? *inhales smoke*
    • In a discussion long ago, I outlined my take on this matter: flexible node depth in the thread view. What else does one need? Although cutting off the 1st level replies en masse would be dismissive and obscure, so better keep them individually as
      -> a reply by Foo
    • Having a fixed "browsing threshold" that does not account for the size of the thread is like slashdot and IMO terrible.
    • As an aside, I had this 1apr idea about replying to nodes with considered (grand)parent: anyone who wants to respond has to play an automated game of rock-paper-scissors, winning 2 out of 3. Except on Tuesdays. Then you have to lose on purpose.
    • But really, why would you want to hide content from search engines? Shame?
    • And finally, why focus or obsess with the negative? Why not emphasize the good stuff instead so that the negative would not even need caveats attached?

    ps. I seem to have lots of sentences ending with a question mark, isn't that so?

      Why not emphasize the good stuff instead so that the negative would not even need caveats attached?

      That's essentially where I'm trying to go with RFC: Better Best Answers, which was inspired by an earlier post of yours.

      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: note [id://1195353]
help
Chatterbox?
and dust plays in a shaft of sunlight...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (7)
As of 2017-12-15 18:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (439 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?