Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Current posting ability limitations

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Nov 10, 2011 at 01:59 UTC ( #937263=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Current posting ability limitations

a more surgical approach

My suggestion for a more surgical approach -- for the interim at least -- would be for anonymous monk posts to only show up to those over (say) level 20 until they have been approved. That same group would be to consider them for reaping.

Since only those over the chosen level will be able to see them, only they can approve them, but there should be sufficient people around at most times to ensure the good stuff don't wait too long for approval.

Anonymous flames and trolls would be invisible when posted -- thereby removing any positive re-enforcement -- and disappear without trace if offensive.

Good AM posts get through as desired.


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".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.


Comment on Re: Current posting ability limitations
Re^2: Current posting ability limitations
by roboticus (Canon) on Nov 10, 2011 at 02:09 UTC

    BrowserUk:

    It seems that trolls need pennance, so limiting the AM posts to level 2 and above would be equivalent!</joke>

    ...roboticus

    When your only tool is a troll-hammer, all posts look like trolls.

      When your only tool is a troll-hammer, all posts look like trolls.

      LOL. Brilliant!

      s/pennance/pennants/. Stupid spellchecker!

Re^2: Current posting ability limitations (interim)
by tye (Cardinal) on Nov 10, 2011 at 03:48 UTC

    Unfortunately, that choice wasn't in the drop-down menu this morning when I was late for a meeting at my day job.

    But your interim approach would be to extend the approval system or invent a new approval system so it could apply to replies, not just root nodes? And update all thread display code to hide unapproved replies? And add approval status notifications and approve-this form elements to the display of all replies?

    Heck, that's a lot more work than the longer-term features I've been planning to add.

    Of course, part of the reason for that is that the approval system and the thread display is some of the least-well-factored and ugliest code on the site. ):

    (Node title not updated until after posting just to double-check that the posting bug is indeed fixed.)

    - tye        

      But your interim approach would be ...

      When you put it that way, I guess not.

      S'the trouble with invisible code-bases, observers can only guess as to what might be easy to implement.


      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".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        Youíre lucky it is invisible. A good glance at the modified Everything engine can cost you a visit to the ophthalmologist. I keed, I keed! But really, itís not fun to look at.

        I regret nnnnnnoooooooot as much as one might expect.

Re^2: Current posting ability limitations
by jdporter (Canon) on Nov 16, 2011 at 16:13 UTC

    I'm surprised tye didn't mention it, but, it's been our long-standing philosophy (note - philosophy, not policy) that making new posts "too invisible" to the poster is generally not a good thing, and that the problem is worse for users of lower experience level, with it being particularly noxious for AM. The reasoning (based on experience) is that if the user can't see the post she just submitted, she'll post it again. And again. And again. We don't need that.

    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://937263]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (7)
As of 2014-10-25 17:05 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (146 votes), past polls