Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: On Moderation

by turnstep (Parson)
on Feb 01, 2001 at 00:03 UTC ( #55541=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to On Moderation

The slew of "older" posts to the Nodes to Consider is my doing. I am in the process of going through the musty halls of the Perl Monks Discussion section and giving it a thorough cleaning. The majority of the ones I moved to consider are ones that should not be in the discussion area but somewhere else, usually SOPW. Some even have replies by vroom stating that they should be moved to SOPW. My main goal is to move everything that does not belong in Discussion to the proper place, so that anyone combing through the archives will only find relevant posts.

I realize that it seems like a lot of considered posts, but realize that I have already gone through over 800 posts (and their threads) and over a year of material. So, not too bad relatively. For the record, I am done now, and it will be a while before I move on to any other section, as I have more (non-considering) work to do in the Discussion wing of the monastery first.

Some of the older ones I also considered because they were trollish, ill-written, or had a bad reputation. If the consideration feature had existed when they were written, I am sure they would have been considered at that time. The age of the node should not matter, IMO, as many of the navigational methods of the monastery (e.g. searching) are non-chronographical.

Finally, remember that even a reaping by Scary Monk does not remove a post from the site, but merely places it one click further away from its previous position.


Comment on Re: On Moderation
(tye)Re: On Moderation
by tye (Cardinal) on Feb 01, 2001 at 03:15 UTC

    Two comments. First, I think that perhaps digging up a whole list of old posts to be moved might be better done outside the Nodes to Consider framework. Even if you get a ton of people to agree that a post should be moved, nothing is going to happen until one of the gods comes by and moves the post by hand. I think it might make the gods' job easier if you collect a bunch of node IDs and group them by where they need to be moved to and let one of the gods do the whole batch at once (probably via Editor Requests).

    Unless you think there will be some controversy over whether a post should be moved, I see no value in using Nodes to Consider for such things. If you aren't sure whether an old node should be move, then I say you should just leave it be rather than solicit a bunch of votes on the matter.

    Second, I've seen several new nodes put under consideration saying they belong in another section. New nodes can be moved to a new section via the approval nodelet, so whoever is using Nodes to Consider for that needs to turn on their approval nodelet and use that instead. Sometimes a node gets approved to the wrong section and then can't be moved in this way. In that case, I suppose Nodes to Consider might be an appropriate place (though Editor Requests might be better since there is no "move" vote option and again, if the decision to move or not is not clear, then rather than vote on it, I'd rather just leave it be). A better option is for everyone to pay attention to the section a post is in before approving it.

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
Re: Re: On Moderation
by turnstep (Parson) on Feb 21, 2001 at 05:04 UTC

    Sorry to follow up on my own post, but the work I alluded to above is mostly finished now - check out my home node for the results of my Discussion cleaning. Next stop, the Meditations! :)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://55541]
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: (8)
As of 2014-07-30 11:27 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (230 votes), past polls