Re^3: Quick feedback option for downvotes

[jdporter]

I realize those threads, and others they link to in turn, are rather lengthy, so I don't expect you to have read them all exhaustively; but I get the impression you only read the root nodes. If you read the threads, you find that the consensus is opposed to your (and your predecessors') proposition. In particular, it gets virtually no support from the site policy makers and the site programmers, so it should come as no surprise that nothing has been done about it. Update: see tye's response below.

Perhaps we need a section of "topics...

That's also not likely to happen. See the FAQ: I think there should be a new Section on PerlMonks for Jobs/Modules/Quizzes/Perl6/Newbies/OffTopic/etc.

---

> > > > What we really need is a workable keyword tagging system. We have keywords, but for some reason, the gods consider it to be a security hazard, or something, so it hasn't been enabled for non-special users.

[tye]

so it should come as no surprise that nothing has been done about it

The "/msg author" link was added.

We have keywords, but for some reason, the gods consider it to be a security hazard, or something, so it hasn't been enabled for non-special users.

Nice unsubstantiated speculation. Feel free to add whatever keywords you want. They aren't disable for non-special users. But they aren't particularly useful either. And I don't know how you imagine keywords can be a security problem. The closest thing to that is the fact that there is no accountability nor reasonable system in place to deal with abuses (which isn't the same as security) so there is nothing to stop me from tagging all of your nodes with whatever abusive term I feel like applying to you and no (easy) way of telling that I was even the one who did it.

I've seen some proposals to try making keywords more useful but I haven't been convinced that any of them would really work at making them that useful, would deal well with abuses, or would be simple enough to ever get implemented. Unless a proposal is likely to meet all three of those criteria, I don't see much point. Some people have decided to start adding keywords, I believe, even though there is still no real use for them nor solid plans.

[jdporter]

They aren't disable for non-special users. But they aren't particularly useful either.

Right. To be precise, I should have said, "You can add keywords, but since the one other essential feature — keyword searching — is disabled (for non-special users), they're completely useless."* My mistake.

Nolo contendere on the appropriateness of the word "security"; what I was referring to was what you described.

Anyway, it may be that we're a long way off from having a usable keyword system. I still maintain that we need one, whether we get it or not. :-)

(*In fact, it's possible to build keyword-based capabilities off-site, since the xml rendering of a node includes the node's keywords.)

[tye]

keyword searching — is disabled (for non-special users)

I was going to say that that is a very inaccurate and misleading way of putting it, since I wasn't aware of the feature existing. But you prompted me to search for the feature. Looking at keyword search, I don't see a problem with allowing all to use it (since it doesn't appear to be a resource hog -- though that will likely change before there is a useful volume of keywords; so I hope the node gets much smarter before then), except that it doesn't appear to use placeholders correctly because keywords with single quotes cause a server error (which means that someone could attempt an SQL injection attack, which I doubt could do anything but I'll not enable it until that is patched). Then we'd have a "keyword search feature" at PerlMonks.

I suppose that would be one less barrier to having a "useful keyword search feature" at PerlMonks. And then keywords would no longer be "completely useless" (in your accessment -- I say that they are already useful, if you want to anonymously insult someone by tagging their nodes)... they would be "nearly completely useless" (based on spending some time trying to use keyword search).

But thanks for indirectly but eventually bringing that to my attention. Progress, though tiny, might eventually lead somewhere. (:

Update: Anyone fixing the lack of placeholder use should just remove the query that doesn't use placeholders. It is silly (and inefficient) to do one query to get a list of node IDs and then use that to do another query that selects on both the list of node IDs and on the keyword again. That will simplify the code and even simplify the complex query. Checking the query plan ("describe") would be good at that point, though, as you don't want to "outsmart" the MySQL optimizer.

[blazar]

The "/msg author" link was added.

Indeed one of the most useful additions, as of late. And, just to make sure: yes, the current mechanisms do work, and well. Yet it seems both from this discussion and other recent ones like mine itself that there is some desire (albeit no compelling necessity) for thingies that are somewhat intermediate in weight and visibility between the evanescent /msg and a full fledged node. Now, if only could think of the nature of such thingies in a way that would fit all of their possible uses...

[jdporter]

Private threads?

[jettero]

Suddenly, I'm very interested in these tags you mention. Is there a place to read about them? Where did you hear about them?

[jdporter]

The Keyword Nodelet, enableable via Nodelet Settings.