Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Bob
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies

by vroom (Pope)
on Jan 19, 2001 at 22:02 UTC ( #53052=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

I'd like to hear what you think about deleting nodes which are worthy of deletion but contain replies. Often the replies contain useful information and it doesn't make sense to destroy that info or the path to get to it. My current thought is transferring ownership of the node to the NodeReaper and placing a note saying this node has been harvested along with possibly a link where you can see a preserved version of it if you're still curious. This would also remove the node from any section pages or the frontpage.

Thoughts on the matter??? Additional ideas??? Let me know what you think below.

vroom | Tim Vroom | vroom@cs.hope.edu

Comment on Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by TStanley (Canon) on Jan 19, 2001 at 22:27 UTC
    This sounds like a good idea. I would say go for it.

    TStanley
    In the end, there can be only one!
Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by PsychoSpunk (Hermit) on Jan 19, 2001 at 22:27 UTC
    How about this scenario:

    A troll posts a pretty bad question, and some monks get suckered into answering. Well, a more astute monk sends it to Nodes To Consider and it gets marked for deletion. The response to the node is still valid, so it shouldn't be removed, but the node makes no sense without the original post. Therefore that reply should have the original node text inlined, properly credited as not being a part of the original node, and made into a top level node. With one caveat: The author of that node, being duly suckered by a troll, has the option to delete the node. Furthermore, I don't think any replies should be allowed to a node that was orphaned. The original node was considered bad enough, and so that thread should be allowed to die.

    Okay, a bit extreme, but that's just a suggestion. And vroom is "trolling" for suggestions, right?

    ALL HAIL BRAK!!!

Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by Albannach (Prior) on Jan 19, 2001 at 22:52 UTC
    Something like this is a great idea. I find myself often voting to keep considered nodes solely on the basis of good replies (GIGO doesn't always apply to the Monastery!), so it would be nice to get around this somehow.

    --
    I'd like to be able to assign to an luser

(tye)Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by tye (Cardinal) on Jan 19, 2001 at 23:21 UTC

    I'm tempted to suggest that, instead of a direct link to the deleted node, the substitute node should just list a node ID and force the overly curious to hand-type a URL. (:

    But I guess that would just result in twice-monthly requests to "fix" that bug. So as long as you can't vote for nor reply to the deleted node, I guess that works pretty well.

    All other aspects of the proposal rock. Thanks, vroom!

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by footpad (Monsignor) on Jan 20, 2001 at 00:16 UTC
    I like it.

    Here's one way it might work, one combining the suggestions to date as well as adding a couple of new ones:

    • When the node is assigned to the Reaper, replace the original text with "This node has been reaped. Reason: <Reason given when Considered>.

    • I'd also add the manual link to the original text that tye suggested, but only when appropriate.

    • I would also add a series of links to a set of FAQ's and useful nodes, just in case the mistake was an honest one. This doesn't have to be terribly context sensitive, if at all...just a set of documents that the true petitioner can refer to quickly to understand why the node got reaped. (More than happy to help locate those, if needed, though I suspect most of you can point to the obvious ones.)

    • I like the direction of PsychoSpunk's idea, but wonder if it would be unworkable due to the increased exposure of the offending material (inlining it) and the fact that there might be multiple replies to the original node in question. Seems like it would either lead to more exposure to the offending node (e.g. multiple owners) or would leave other replies in thread limbo.

    • As an attempt to avoid rewarding the obvious trolls (you can probably figure out the candidate I have in mind), I'd also add some sort of "No Mercy" switch in Consider, which would hide the original material as completely as possible. A recent ASCII artwork comes to mind, as does a short-lived attack posted this morning. This would help implement the second point.

      The idea here is to reduce the possibilities of giving certain, uh, folks any reason to think their behavior has caused a commotion. ("Just a simple edit, ma'am. No trouble at all.")

    • When Reaper takes possession of a real monk's node (as opposed to one posted by AM), "he" should /msg the poster, saying something to the effect of, "I have reaped one of your nodes. For details, see <Node Title>."

      I think that could help the original poster learn from the experience, especially if we include the links of suggested reading.

    I'm trying to balance the need to educate (and reduce) those making honest mistakes against simple troll prevention. As always, feedback is welcome.

    Otherwise, I think it's a great idea. (Also, thanks for your continued efforts, especially the recent updates to Nodes to Consider.)

    --f
      This is more of the intent that I would like to see. Just wanted to get the ball rolling with my idea. ++ once I can vote again.

      ALL HAIL BRAK!!!

Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by turnstep (Parson) on Jan 20, 2001 at 01:52 UTC

    I vote for simply deleting the whole thread. Seeing replies without the original post is going to be confusing. Yes, there may have been some good replies, but on the whole, bad nodes are not going to get good replies. Most of the really "bad" ones are either personal attacks or just someone fooling around (like cutting and pasting code from other nodes, or posting purposefully bad code). Maybe an exception could be made for replies that actually have really, really good content, but as a rule I would say to delete them.

      I agree. I have a hard time believing that a node could at the same time be worthy of deletion and also elicit replies with high quality information that hasn't been covered just as well elsewhere. If the replies are that good, maybe the node really doesn't need to go. And some of the above solutions, while they may be useful, seem like a lot of work to go through for something of dubious value.

      When's the last time you used duct tape on a duct? --Larry Wall

        You don't have to believe, just open your eyes and you can see it happen. I've seen plenty. I think the cases furtherest on that end are nodes that the author eventually finds "embarrassing" (or just gets sick of being voted down on) and demands that the node be deleted.

        I'm not convinced that such nodes should be deleted (neither am I convinced that they never should be), but I've seen it happen many times. And I think a sensible deletion policy makes more sense than, for example, having the author replace the contents of the node with something completely different (or they just make it blank).

                - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
Re: Handling Nodes Worthy of Deletion which contain replies
by extremely (Priest) on Jan 20, 2001 at 12:27 UTC
    Well, I think that if the whole tree of replies get marked for the reaper you might as well just kill the whole thread permanently. Otherwise, what you describe is about the best idea I've heard. You preserve it for posterity if they look real hard, you purge it from easy viewing and you leave well written comments in the system. That is pretty much a win anyway you slice it...

    --
    $you = new YOU;
    honk() if $you->love(perl)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://53052]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-04-21 13:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (495 votes), past polls