Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Don't Retitle This Node

by kutsu (Priest)
on Dec 17, 2004 at 17:09 UTC ( #415701=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Don't Retitle This Node

The reasons I considered that node for retitling were two: the first being that a person with the same problem as the poster might not search for "trashed by HTML"; the second the title I suggested seem (to me at least) to fit the solution that would and was given. However, I should point out I gave my reasons for the title change in the cb and asked if anyone had a problem with my suggested title, could think of a better one, or had any other thoughts, of that castaway meantion she had no problem with the original title and ikegami meantioned another title might be "bite by matt again" (parapharing out of memory lapse) but I took that to be a joke...though it does seem to be the problem. So I considered the node, voted edit, and waited thinking that if people do not want the name change they (like you) could vote keep. As for bland and boring, I care about function more then most else, so for the most part I care not if something is bland and boring as long as that something works (though the intent/humour/personality of the author I agree with)

Btw. it would have been nice if you had /msged me asking for my reasons (before or after making the thread), and indeed I may have been wrong here...wouldn't be the first time.

"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." Ambrose Bierce


Comment on Re: Don't Retitle This Node
Re^2: Don't Retitle This Node
by Anonymous Monk on Dec 17, 2004 at 18:07 UTC
    Retitling nodes makes it harder for the original poster to find them.

      Registered users can receive notifications of replies. Thems the breaks of not registering.

      In addition to receiving notifiction of replies, as chromatic pointed out, registered users can also get a list of all nodes they've created, from a link on their homenode. And if the title isn't clear anymore, they can use Super Search and limit by author to search for specific content.

      janitors are encouraged to /msg the original poster when a title change is done (and a form is automatically provided for that purpose when a node is updated.)
Re^2: Don't Retitle This Node
by jdporter (Canon) on Dec 17, 2004 at 18:08 UTC
    I'm with kutsu on this. The point of consideration is to raise the idea and put it to a vote - to see which way the preponderance of opinion falls. It's understood that not every consideration passes - let alone unanimously.

      The, "who cares if this consideration sucked, that is why we vote" idea also sucks. It tries to shift the responsibility to where it can never be shifted. Great care needs to be taken before submitting a request for consideration. You can't rely on the voters taking great care to catch your mistakes.

      So criticism of a consideration attempt is valid.

      Consideration should be done because someone feels strongly that something specific should be done. Consideration to float an idea that the person making the requestion is unsure about is hoping that the majority of voters will do the work to figure out what really should be done and make this apparent based on voting.

      You might feel like you are "helping out" by considering a node that needs something done, but a wishy-washy, not very well thought out consideration is not helping. Save your energy for a consideration that you have better insight on and let someone else who is more inspired in this particular case take it.

      In this particular case, one must not fall victim to the temptation to make the question title match the answer to the question. That is the wrong approach for several reasons. When someone is trying to solve a problem, they are unlikely to be searching for something that makes sense based on the answer. Your guess at the answer is often wrong. When suggesting a new title, stick to what the question actually says and try to avoid doing much interpretting of the question and certainly avoid trying to guess what the answer will be.

      The consideration made some mistakes, but so did sauoq. The question was about "HTML comments", as can be seen if you look at the XML form of the question. But "guestbook" should have been left in the new title.

      Let's err on the side of "leave it alone" or at least changing it less rather than more.

      - tye        

        After reading the node several times over, and proably missing the point mostly cause of a stress at work distracting me ;), I tend to agree with tye on several points, esp. needing guestbook in the title and not trusting that others will read the node before voting keep/edit/delete, and will admit this consideration was either a complete mistake or had too many mistakes (thereby meaning I wasn't careful enough). I shall strive to be more careful in my future considerations.

        "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." Ambrose Bierce

Re^2: Don't Retitle This Node
by sauoq (Abbot) on Dec 17, 2004 at 18:24 UTC
    Btw. it would have been nice if you had /msged me asking for my reasons (before or after making the thread), and indeed I may have been wrong here...wouldn't be the first time.

    If this had been meant as some sort of personal indictment, kutsu, I would have. The fact is that this sort of thing happens pretty regularly and I've seen it many times in the couple of years that I've been coming here. You just happened to be the person to do it this time. And it just happened to be this time that I decided to speak my mind.

    I think that people's eagerness to help simply gets in the way sometimes. And, unfortunately, many people often vote "edit" or "delete" on considerations without actually considering anything themselves.

    As for bland and boring, I care about function more then most else, so for the most part I care not if something is bland and boring as long as that something works

    Firstly, they aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, I maintain that the author's original title was better than yours from the functional standpoint as well. You are correct in saying that someone with the same problem probably won't search for "trashed by HTML" but on the other side of the coin, someone searching for "HTML comments" would likely have no interest in this node.

    Moreover, it would be better if something would be found in the case that a user actually does come along and search for "trashed by HTML". A search for "HTML comment" already returns several results. If someone used that phrase in a title once, then someone else is likely to search for that phrase later.

    I'll toss out the suggestion here that searchability isn't the end-all-be-all for a node title in any case. The vast majority of nodes here won't ever need to be visited again. The same questions are answered time and time again and this is another Good Thing™ because dusty sprawling FAQs aren't nearly as effective as a personal response. (And they do nothing to enroll anyone in a community.) And since the answers are so abundant here, it is also true that most of them serve their purpose and then can be safely forgotten. There is little or no added value in every answer to a question popping up in a search. As I pointed out above, it's far better that something will come back for any search. Finally, the simple search isn't meant to be a fine-grained control. There is Super Search for when you really need to find something specific.

    -sauoq
    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
    

      As for /msg me, I don't have a problem with it, as the only part of your writing directed at me was as an example not an attack or insult. I would have liked to have given my reasons, if only to show I actually have reasons for most of the things I do, but I was able to do this anyway.

      Looking back at the title and my recommended title, I seem to have broken my own rule "if I can argue with my recommendation, don't make the recommendation", and I could have argued many of your own points with myself. So ++ for pointing out my error, which fortunetly seems to be a rare error (though through chance or purpose could be argued ;), and ++ for not letting me slip out of it.

      "Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum - I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." Ambrose Bierce

      I think that people's eagerness to help simply gets in the way sometimes. And, unfortunately, many people often vote "edit" or "delete" on considerations without actually considering anything themselves.
      That's why janitors oughtn't to act on considerations with a edit to keep ratio of less than 3 or 4.
Re^2: Don't Retitle This Node
by Anonymous Monk on Feb 23, 2005 at 11:09 UTC
    The reasons I considered that node for retitling were two: the first being that a person with the same problem as the poster might not search for "trashed by HTML"; the second the title I suggested seem (to me at least) to fit the solution that would and was given.

    Considering the amount of questions asked over and over again, I don't think it's that common for people to search whether their question was answered. However, while it's nice to cater for people that come here after they got into trouble, you're forgetting about another class of people: people that visit this site a few times a week to read the threads they find interesting, and learn something. Hopefully to avoid problems in the future. As said, "Disallowing HTML Comments for a Chatroom." is bland and boring, and more people will skip it than if it were titled "Emergency! Our guestbook is getting trashed by HTML!". The first suggests one of the theoretical style meditations you often see here, "if you do X and conditions Y, Z and W are true also, V happens". The original title clearly indicates it's about an actual case. Perhaps the 'Emergency' is overdone. But overall, a much better title.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://415701]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (12)
As of 2014-09-17 16:06 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (91 votes), past polls