Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies.

Modify choices for Nodes to Consider

by talexb (Chancellor)
on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:34 UTC ( [id://521228]=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

So, I've been here for a while and I'm used to the site's quirks. I like quirks. 'Stumbit' is cute.

But I'm not crazy about the choices for Nodes to Consider; Right now they are

() keep () edit () reap () nada
and after a while I've learned that if we're not being asked to delete (reap) something, we're being asked to approve an edit (add code tags, fix title, and so forth) or move a node. It would be a little less confusing, in particular for a node move (which requires a yes/no answer), if the choices were something like this:
() keep/no () edit/yes () reap () nada
either explicitly (as above) or implicitly (perhaps by updating the documentation). It just goes against the grain (briefly) when I have to approve a node move by clicking on 'edit'.

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by ambrus (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 16:23 UTC

    No. Keep the options as they are now.

    I think keep is exactly the right word for not moving a node. Edit is indeed not a very good description for moving, but I don't like the words "yes" and "no". "Edit/move" would be sort of acceptable, but "yes" and "no" would IMO make improper considerations more frequent. It could make the impression that consideration is not a moderation tool but a general way to decide something about the post. (Especially because the nodelet title is "Approval Nodelet" instead of the more approperiate "Moderation Nodelet".) Yes, I know the documentated policy is against such misusage, but that's not enough.

    Also you don't usually consider a node for moving: you either move it or consider for unapproving so that it can be moved.

      I'd say that for a move, "yes" and "no" are excellent choices. "yes"/"no" may be bad choices for different questions, but then different questions should have different answers to pick from.
      Perl --((8:>*
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:22 UTC
    I'm in favor of modifying the documentation, not the option labels. The choices are relatively clear: keep means do nothing, nada means don't vote, reap means reap, and edit means do some sort of janitoring short of reaping. I don't think adding "no" and "yes" will, on average, make things more clear. If someone can come up with a 4-letter word that encompasses all kinds of janitoring short of reaping, I'd be in favor of replacing "edit".

    A three-letter word that I think would work is "fix". I'd also go for "salvage".

    Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.

      Since this thread is my fault, I'd like to state that updating the documentation would be fine -- the existing radio button setup just goes against the grain of my brain, and I thought I'd mention it. Perha[s the documentation could be update to say something like, "In the case where a node move is suggested, the 'edit' choice agrees with that suggestion, and the 'keep' choice disagrees.

      And mix and match as appropriate (for other considerations).

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

        In the case of a consideration requesting that a node be moved between sections, an "edit" vote expesses support for editting the location of the node.

        - tye        

        I have never voted on consideration for precisely the reason you started this thread -- the choices have never made any sense to me, and the effort required to decipher what the options mean is far greater than the amount that I care about any consideration I've seen. After having read this thread, I finally understand what the choices are supposed to represent.

        Maybe I'm just... cognitively challenged, but I think it is very possible that there are others who have the same problem. In which case, the current wording is lowering the level of participation. (...then again, perhaps it is just keeping us idiots out...)

        I would definitely prefer something like

          () keep  () change  () reap  () abstain
        (I'm not crazy about "nada" either.)

      An alternative is to change "keep" to "leave" to more strongly imply "leave it unaltered". Moving something seems to me to be near enough editing so I haven't a problem with that.

      DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
        What about the following?
        () Publish As Is  () Publish After Editing/Moving  () Reap  () Abstain

        -- Argel

Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by vagnerr (Prior) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:39 UTC
    Sounds good to me, it would also save the "keep for no, edit for yes" that you occasionaly see in the consider message. Keeps everything nice and simple.
    I would also like to suggest that the consider nodelet does something like
    ()-keep/no ()-edit/yes ()-reap ()-nada
    too, as sometimes its a little confusing when it wraps.

    Remember that amateurs built Noah's Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
        .. as sometimes its a little confusing when it wraps.

      Really? Do you have a very narrow screen? I don't think I've ever run into that particular problem.

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

        I almost never use the full screen width for my browser so I frequently see nodelet lines split in an odd fashion. Non-breaking spaces would be good in those places just to accomodate people who do it differently - after all, that's part of what Perl is about isn't it?

        DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by ysth (Canon) on Jan 06, 2006 at 10:00 UTC
    For cases where the labels don't exactly fit, the consideration reason should specify what they will mean, e.g. "Move from SoPW to Meditations (edit=move)".
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by tirwhan (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:44 UTC

    To me this seems more confusing than the old options, especially if you consider (heh) a consideration of "Delete because of xxxx". How many people will then click on "edit/yes" when they actually mean "reap"?

    A computer is a state machine. Threads are for people who can't program state machines. -- Alan Cox

      I was trying to leave 'yes' and 'no' as options, but perhaps the choices need to be

      () keep/don't move () edit/move () reap () nada

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by sauoq (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:49 UTC

    I'd like it to be simpler yet... Like

    ()yes ()no ()null
    If the consideration is to delete the node, then "yes" would mean "reap". Reap votes on nodes that haven't been considered for deletion are, I think, generally unnecessary.

    P.S. I like "stumbit" too, but "nada" irks me.

    "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

      Unfortunately, there are times when the consideration asks for, or allows for, both edit and reap as alternatives. Prime example: off-topic nodes.

      We're building the house of the future together.

        So, let's just get rid of ambiguous considerations too. I really don't think off-topic nodes should be reaped in the vast majority of cases. Reaping is for trolls. OT posts should simply never be approved. (Though, marking them 'OT' might be reasonable as well.)

        "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://521228]
Approved by Corion
Front-paged by grinder
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-04-22 05:28 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found