Re: Re (tilly) 1: Reminders for Friars, etc...

[footpad]

But registered users with even a small amount of problem usually don't have trouble finding responses to their posts.

Well, if we were here only for ourselves, I'd agree with you completely. However, we have a broad (and evolving) membership. Some newer (or later) recruits may not realize that there are more nodes lurking in the shadows. Verifying that a node has been OK'd is fairly painless and helps ensure that the archives remain as accessible as possible. I believe it also ensures that the replies to those nodes get a slightly larger audience, with all the relative benefits (*cough*) of that exposure.

I know it's a minor nit. Still, since many (though certainly not all) "unapproved" nodes are basic questions, one wonders if making sure they appear in the various index pages seems like a good way to ensure that our records remain as accessible as possible.

--f

[tye]

I feel that off-topic questions usually shouldn't be reaped and usually shouldn't be approved for their section. But replying to them is often appropriate.

Not approving a question prevents it from showing in that section. If it isn't on-topic for that section, then it shouldn't show. This doesn't stop it from showing up via searching or Super Search. I don't think off-topic material should be maximally accessible anyway. q-:

So I agree with tilly that replying shouldn't imply approving (with a note that AnonyMonk questions, unfortunately, should be approved with more leniency).

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")