Consideration overhaul?by castaway (Parson)
|on Mar 07, 2004 at 14:32 UTC||Need Help??|
This is about some suggestions on how to change/approve the considerations/voting system, with the aim of nudging people towards thinking before they consider, and reading nodes/replies before they vote on considerations.
Without further ado, the following suggestions have been made:
1. To encourage more consideration before Consideration; not allow considering of nodes until they have been around for at least X hours. Probably this would only apply to root nodes. Editors would still be able to step in and edit nodes without them being considered, thus immediate problems such as lack of code/html tags etc would still get fixed. Downside: root nodes that are (really) offensive would also take a while to get removed, although 3 editors could still nuke them.
2. Change the consideration choices; Instead of just a text box and a button, the nodelet could actually list reasons like delete, fix formatting, duplicate, retitle, OT etc. With the textfield for the reason, and box that takes an id, for the duplicate type. This could be combined with the above to allow only certain types of considerations immediately, and others later.
3. Nudge people voting on considerations to actually read the node in question; This involves changes to, or doing away with, Nodes to Consider. The assumption being that people go to Nodes to Consider, look through the considerations, and vote, without actually going to the node itself, and reading it, and/or its replies. (Which might, for example, prove that a node isn't as OT as was believed at all). So, Nodes to Consider could just list nodes that have been considered, without showing what for, or the node contents, but just providing links to the nodes in question.
4. A further improvement on this would be to add links in the approval nodelet showing the 'next considered/last considered' nodes, (usefully, just the ones one hasn't voted on yet). Making it easier to not go to Nodes to Consider at all.
Update: Oops, forgot to mention that this came from the editors' wiki.