|P is for Practical|
Re^2: RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitorsby jdporter (Canon)
|on Jul 25, 2018 at 20:06 UTC||Need Help??|
Thank you, shmem, for your very thoughtful and detailed reply.
I guess that this policy is meant to prevent the decision on how to vote on a particular node from being biased by the node's actual tally; and to prevent Anonymous Monk to add negativity upon negativity
Well, no. The idea was as I stated in the OP. It's about protecting, in some measure, the overall "quality" and reputation of the site in the eyes of the wider world, by hiding from Anonymous Monk (which would include folks following hits from google, for example) the worst of the site's content.
That being said, it could possibly also have the effects you stated. It would, ever so slightly, "break the wall" of invisibility around each node's rep before voting. But is this really such a concern? It would require more than a little effort on a monk's part to discover that a bad node has a rep above or below the threshold; and then what?
It's worth pointing out that we already have ways in which this kimono is partially opened — in particular, with ordering of replies by reputation. I don't view this cloaking as particularly sacred. Is it really?
hiding negatively reputed nodes goes against free speech
As others have said -- this isn't really true. If you want to make an argument along this line, you'd better attack reaping first.
the perl monks endured people like ... with great patience and no harm done to the community
Unfortunately, I don't think you're right on either count. Anyway, we as a community have a right to protect ourselves from the effects wrought by bad actors, and this proposal is an attempt to do so in the least intrusive and disruptive way.
it is up to anybody themselves what to do being presented with a bit of information, and how to react
There is a substantial difference between how logged-in users use the site, and how (we suppose) random drive-by visitors use the site. The present proposal is based on the presumption that the latter are mainly looking for good technical content. In this light, we would actually be doing them a service. If you want to see all the content, grab a nametag and come on in.
Privacy is a whole different thing I want to add, just in case
Okayyy... What is your point? Privacy is generally not a concern here, since no one is required to use real names nor any other "PII". The main privacy element I can think of is private messaging between monks. Does that factor into this somehow?
I think that adding "this node has negative reputation" to, rather than hiding a node, would be a better choice.
Thank you; that is an excellent idea. We could style a very negative note in such a way that says "this reply has been deemed of very poor quality by a consensus of monks" or some such.
Hiding subtrees: Don't! because answers and discussions to/about a bad node might contain valuable information and interesting subthreads worth reading.
Theoretically, maybe. But be honest: When's the last time you saw a reply to a very low-quality note contain matter of worthy technical merit? It's very rare. Such subthreads almost always consist of bashing the author for continuing to post garbage, etc.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.