Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

User Posts

( #1135479=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??
Posts by jdporter
RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitors in Perl Monks Discussion
15 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Jul 24, 2018 at 17:10

    Following on from previous discussion on this topic...

    Problem:

    In the eye of the public (that is, not-logged-in visitors), the apparent quality of the site can be significantly dragged down by answers (or other replies) which are esteemed by the voting population to be notoriously poor.

    Proposed Solution:

    Within threaded views of discussions, hide from Anonymous Monk any replies with a sufficiently low negative reputation.

    Details:

    In the threaded view of a post within a section such as SoPW, and within the threaded outlines displayed by RAT, any reply with a reputation below a given threshold will not be displayed. (This has the effect of hiding the entire sub-thread rooted at such reply as well.) This feature would only affect Anonymous Monk. Proposed threshold: -7.

    This would not affect any node being viewed "directly", only replies under it -- regardless of that node's type or reputation. It also would not affect root posts being shown in RAT.

    FAQ

    Q. I want to see every reply, even low-rep ones. Does this affect me?
    A. No, as long as you're logged in.
    Q. Ok, suppose I'm Anonymous Monk. Can I opt out of this "feature"?
    A. No, as long as you're not logged in.
    Q. Ok, then are these "very bad" replies completely inaccessible to me?
    A. No; you can still get to them via other normal means, such as Search and Super Search, and direct links.
    Q. What about in Newest Nodes? Will these "very bad" replies be hidden there as well?
    A. Not under the current plan. That's a more "raw" interface, and isn't particularly useful for visitors trying to get a view of a "question" along with its "answers".
    Q. I think a node would have to be much worse than -7 to merit this kind of treatment.
    A. That's not a question. Here's a question: What threshold value would you suggest?
    Q. This sounds like reaping but without the process. Why don't we just let the reaping process handle this problem?
    A. The criteria for reaping are fairly strict. Simply having abominable technical merit (for example) is not sufficient grounds for reaping. Yet these are not strangers to our land it may still be desirable to shield the eyes of innocent visitors from such content. That's all we're trying to do here. Once you've signed in at the front gate and picked up your meal chit, all content is laid bare, just as always, no matter how bad.

    Other thoughts on this idea? Alternative proposals?

    See my update below.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
RFC: Better Best Answers in Perl Monks Discussion
5 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Sep 12, 2016 at 17:50

    It has long been understood, and I have long felt, that the Categorized Questions and Answers section is fundamentally suboptimal in how it works from the users' perspective; and I can tell you that it would be essentially impossible to improve by a sequence of minor tweaks. What we need is a fresh start. And whatever that looks like, it should reduce the complexity of the site, not add to it. I would suggest that the QA section should be eliminated entirely, and instead have some means to identify and indicate "good questions" and "best answers" among the nodes in the Seekers of Perl Wisdom section. Here are my thoughts; please share yours.

    QandAEditors would have a way to attach a "good" flag to nodes in SoPW.

    A root post (question) so flagged would be analogous to our current "approved questions", and a reply so flagged would be a "good/best answer".

    (By procedure, but without enforcement, QandAEditors would generally only mark first-level replies as "good".)

    Monks of sufficient venerability would be given special bonus votes to help raise the reputation of worthy replies.

    Monks of Level 11 (Chaplain) and above would receive, each day, bonus votes equal to their level minus 10.
    These bonus votes can only be spent according to the following restrictions:

    • Only on replies in SoPW, not on root posts and not in any other section;
    • Only to upvote, not to downvote; and
    • Only on nodes which the monk has already upvoted.
    In effect, a Level 11 monk would get a chance, once per day, to give +=2 to a SoPW reply of hir choice.

    Ancillary to all the above, there would of course be a way visually to indicate which replies to a question were deemed "best". There may even be a reply sorting option to put best answers at the top. An option could be added to Super Search to let the user get only "best answers", if desired.

    If this proposal is enacted, then we could theatrically theoretically create a batch process to convert all of the existing Categorized Questions to SoPW posts with the "good" flag set, and their answers to replies similarly. That would fairly trivial.

    Why Level 11? Because any time we come up with an idea for a new "level power", I like to try to assign it to a level which currently has none. Ideally, each level would offer some new prize as an enticement. And looking at Number of Monks by Level, I see the numbers jump at level 11. For this arrangement to be worthwhile, we'd need a goodly number of monks to participate.

    Credit goes to the author of Re^2: Threaded Monks Yodeling Modeling, for stimulating me to think more about this problem and try to come up with a potential solution.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Editing your writeup is now a separate action from viewing a thread and voting on replies in Perl Monks Discussion
5 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Jun 13, 2016 at 16:12

    Historically, when you view one of your writeups (e.g. a CUFP post), you are given a form right there in which to edit your post if you wish. The form fields for that were in the same form as the node voting buttons. This enabled surprising behavior, described here. Therefore, I have removed the "edit" form from the main display view of your posts and pushed it off into a separate edit page. So now, if you visit one of your writeups, you won't see an edit form right there, but you will see an 'Edit' link in the upper right.

    This change has already been in effect for about three months (as I mentioned) for certain sections — Obfuscated Code, Perl Poetry, Meditations, maybe others — and is now in effect for all sections: CUFP, PMD, Obfu, Meditations, News, SoPW, Tutorials, Inner Scriptorium, Poetry, Snippets, Code Catacombs, even Craft, as well as your replies in any section, and any posts of yours which have been thrown into the Off Topic bin.

    Update: Based on feedback from users such as BrowserUK below, I have added a user display option to have the writeup edit form directly on the display page, below the writeup, as previously. However, it is now enclosed in a separate form from the voting buttons, so that the "surprising behavior" can no longer occur.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
'Bare' display style now supports css styling in Perl Monks Discussion
1 direct reply — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Mar 22, 2015 at 13:24

    Logged-in users can now apply a css stylesheet to nodes rendered using the 'bare' display style. To do so, go to your Display Settings, and look for the text field labeled "Link to External CSS stylesheet for 'bare' display style:", near the bottom. Only "external" css is supported in this way; the text field's value must be a URL for a page of css.

    For starters, here is some simple css which makes it easier to see the tree structure of replies and to distinguish one reply from another:

    li.reply { border: 1px solid black; margin:5px; counter-increment: re +ply-list; margin-top:20px; }

    You can actually use that "[download]" link, there, as the URL in the Display Settings field. :-)

    To see a page rendered in the 'bare' display style, either add ;style=bare to the URL of the page, or insert /bare/ in the path part of the URL. Examples:

  • http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=295788;style=bare
  • http://perlmonks.org/bare/?node_id=295788

    More ideas:
    form > div.reputation, div.comment-on { padding:8px; border:4px outset #0A8; } div.comment-on br { display:none } div.body { padding:12px } div.pmsig { border: 1px dotted black; margin:5px; } div.header, div.footer { padding:4px; border:3px outset #666; } ul.inline-list li { display:inline; } ul.inline-list li:before { content:"\2023"; margin-left:1em; margin-ri +ght:0.2em; } ul.replies { list-style: decimal; counter-reset: reply-list; } li.reply { border: 1px solid black; margin:5px; counter-increment: re +ply-list; margin-top:20px; }
    For pmdev:
    p.titlechooser { display:none; }
    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Message Inbox: Retain Deleted messages longer in Perl Monks Discussion
1 direct reply — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Feb 04, 2014 at 21:38

    My hallucinogenic memory tells me that I read, somewhere, a long time ago, that any messages in your 'Deleted' folder get purged every day, or something like that; and my experience certainly seems to bear that out.

    Can we please change that to a week, or at least several days? Thanks you!

    (And if anyone can tell me where the code that implements this is -- and if it's a code node -- I'd be happy to code the implementation myself.)

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Proposal: Have Image Macros in Perl Monks Discussion
12 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Jul 10, 2012 at 22:30

    So, in my quest to identify ways in which to increase the fun and "value" of PerlMonks, I thought of image macros.

    (Background: Here's the wikipedia article on image macros, though I don't think it describes it clearly.)

    My proposal is simple:

    1. Image macros would be inserted in a post with shortcut-like markup, e.g. [macro://advicedog|use strict and warnings/RTFM] which would result in an image like this.
    2. The available images would be strictly controlled by TPTB (gods, maybe pmdev). The ability to upload an image for the purpose, or to link to an off-site image for the purpose, would be explicitly unpossible. Of course, users would be free to suggest new images via PMD, /msg [pmdev], etc.
    3. Image macros would only work in posts, not in the cb.
    4. There would be a checkbox in one's user settings by which the fuddy-duds could turn off the funk. For them, the above could be rendered as advicedog says: use strict and warnings/RTFM maybe. (I know this example is lame. This kind of cleverness is not my strong suit.)
    5. We could make it so that it would only work if the author of the post was at least a certain level. I'm thinking something relatively low, since the potential for abuse is so small. How about Level 6: Scribe, which currently has no other special powers/privileges?
    6. Update: Additional ideas courtesy of kcott, below.

    7. The images — which would be hosted here on-site, probably — would be limited in size to something reasonable. (200x200?)
    8. You would only be able to insert one per node.
    9. The macro would be rendered with appropriate markup for styling, e.g. <span class="imagemacro advicedog" ... This would enable you to, for example, hide macros altogether, if even the non-image rendering (see #4 above) is too much for you.

    By the way — even if this feature does get approved for the pmdev to-do list, its priority is likely to be pretty low. There are too many other enhancements of much greater impact and benefit to be done yet.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
(OT) Your Dream OS in Meditations
16 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Apr 12, 2012 at 12:30

    Thinking about various operating systems and what makes them more or less preferable to others. So I'd like to put this question to you: If you could create a new OS with the best aspects of other existing systems — a "love child", if you will — what would it have? What are the things that set your favorite system(s) apart?

    I'm phrasing the survey like this:

    My ideal environment would have:

    • the    (noun)    of Linux,
    • the    (noun)    of Mac, and
    • the    (noun)    of Windows.

    Or:

    My ideal environment would be:

    •    (adjective)    like Linux,
    •    (adjective)    like Mac, and
    •    (adjective)    like Windows.

    Feel free to use other systems (Plan9? VMS?) as you like, though I'm mainly interested in these "big 3".

    For myself, I think my ideal environment would have:

    • the simplicity, power, and FOSSitude of Linux,
    • the sane and elegant UX of Mac, and
    • the ubiquity (with all that entails — well, all the good stuff, anyway) of Windows.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Try DuckDuckGo:// in Perl Monks Discussion
4 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Oct 12, 2011 at 09:30

    There is a new shortcut type for searching via the DuckDuckGo search engine. You can write [ddg://...] (which is an alias for the verbose [duckduckgo://...]).

    DuckDuckGo is incredibly powerful, and I'm really excited about it. (It also does All The Right Things with regard to privacy, which is one area where Google is seriously at fault.) Take a look at the goodies, and in particular, the !bang commands. We're in there! (Also, fwiw, DDG is largely written in Perl. :-)

    However, I would caution that currently DDG has a ways to go in terms of forwarding queries to various sites properly. For example, in the case of !perlmonks, the query is passed literally to our Search box, i.e. ?node=query. Which means if there is no node with that exact title, it gets passed through to Super Search, with its default of parsing search terms on space. So a query !perlmonks "author wish" does not DWYM! Quote marks are apparently not parsed specially by DDG when delegating a search to the target site.

    Anyway, please kick the tires of this thing and let me know if you find any other snags. We may be able to forward our findings to the DDG team.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Policy clarification regarding the deletion of user accounts/content in Perl Monks Discussion
1 direct reply — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Jul 13, 2011 at 22:22

    Well lately we've had another case of someone not finding the PerlMonks experience to their liking and wanting to wipe themselves off the site. Since the PerlMonks FAQ did not sufficiently address this scenario, we've written up a new FAQlet in order to explicitly lay it down: How can I wipe every trace of myself from PerlMonks?.

    I figured it was worth bringing this to y'all's attention. :-)

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
RFC: Eliminate the "Offer Your Reply" links in Perl Monks Discussion
6 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
by jdporter
on Feb 07, 2011 at 14:01
Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (2)
As of 2018-08-21 01:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Asked to put a square peg in a round hole, I would:









    Results (197 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?