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

Re^2: Messaging the result of a consideration

by Athanasius (Bishop)
on May 21, 2017 at 06:40 UTC ( #1190784=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Messaging the result of a consideration
in thread Messaging the result of a consideration

2 keeps are enough to block automatic reaping and the janitors didn't do it manually.

For the record, janitors can’t reap a node manually. Only the gods can do that.

Athanasius <°(((><contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

  • Comment on Re^2: Messaging the result of a consideration

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Messaging the result of a consideration
by LanX (Cardinal) on May 25, 2017 at 00:36 UTC
    > For the record,†janitors†canít reap a node manually

    So do you think janitors should have this power?

    Maybe restricted to certain preconditions?

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

      Hello LanX,

      Interesting suggestion. In general, I would say No, but in some cases it could be useful. For example:

      A reply node A is posted twice (accidental duplicate B), and the second reply (B) is considered for reaping. But B also has answers, and consequently receives upvotes. The end result is that B has, say, 15 votes to reap (and none to keep or edit) but non-negative rep, so it can’t be reaped automatically. In this case it would be nice if a janitor could transfer B’s upvotes (if any) to A, re-parent replies to B as replies to A, and then reap B. But I doubt that such a fix, even if generally approved, would be practicable to implement.

      If janitors ever do get the power to reap nodes manually, I think there should be at least two preconditions: (1) the node has a high number of reap votes (significantly higher than the current threshold for automatic reaping); and (2) at least 24 hours should have elapsed since the node was posted. But of course that’s just off the top of my head. No doubt there are other factors I haven’t considered that would need to be addressed before such a change could be contemplated seriously.


      Athanasius <°(((><contra mundum Iustus alius egestas vitae, eros Piratica,

        How about this: Leave everything about reaping exactly as it is, except -- if the vote being cast would be the one that triggers reapage, and the user casting it is a janitor, then make the number of 'keep' votes necessary to inhibit reaping higher, like 4 or 6, instead of the normal 2.

        The effect would be that a janitor can cause the reaping of a node even if the consideration has enough keeps (2, or even 3) to prevent reapage normally. But reapage would still be prevented if there were a greater critical mass of 'keep's.

        I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1190784]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2020-10-21 08:28 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    My favourite web site is:

    Results (212 votes). Check out past polls.