|Perl: the Markov chain saw|
Re: Is nodereaper on worst nodes of note?by footpad (Monsignor)
|on Mar 19, 2001 at 01:03 UTC||Need Help??|
I agree that NodeReaper has gotten a little carried away and that we should be concerned about it.
Here's a few ideas:
If memory serves, a node is reaped when it receives a greater 5-2 Delete/Keep before getting a reply and so on. In reviewing the nodes that have been reaped, it looks as if the current algorithm doesn't take Edit votes into account. Perhaps the equation should be reworked to a) include Edit votes and b) increase the ratio to 10:2.
When combined with a more limited consideration membership, this should more accurately reflect the collective will of the most experienced (and presumably participating) monks.
Update #1: In response to tye's reply below:
I'm not saying get rid of the Reaper. I agree that he serves a useful purpose.
Your formula is reasonable.
One reason why I suggested the janitors gain restoration powers was designed to help off-load some of the work from TFL. Most of the Editors are here much of the time, whereas vroom pops in periodically. It's just seemed a more optimal use of resources.
As far as getting to word out, well, there have been a number of posts on the subject since Consideration was introduced. Many of these were well received, but the problems they tried to address still exist. I believe part of this stems from a number of people using the Approval nodelet instead of their votes. I don't expect it's the Senior Monks and limiting access to Approval Nodelet should help reduce this sort of Approval abuse.
I agree with you that duplicate or slightly duplicate questions should be allowed to remain. As I've said previously, vote them down and then take the opportunity to educate the poster and those who follow.
Update #2: Fixed a "tpyo" and clarified the purpose of Update #1.