(jcwren) Re: Is nodereaper on worst nodes of note?

[jcwren]

I've been talking to vroom on and off about this. My personal feeling is that the NodeReaper is out of hand, and needs to be seriously tuned down. Why?

Because to erase bad posts is to erase history, and examples of what not to do. This becomes particularly troublesome as nodes are crosslinked as examples in rants, explanations, and general references.

What would I delete? Flat out trolls, duplicate posts, and that's about it. I'd be leaving vnpandeys post. Particularly debug the error!! as a shining example of what not to do.

To delete nodes is to erase history. History is what makes us who and what we are, be it good or bad. Denying something happened doesn't make it not have happened, no matter how hard some groups would like to believe this.

It is my belief that we cannot simply cull for best content. Anytime you start deleting things simply because they have a bad reputation, you've imposed censorship. Granted, it won't ever be a completely censorship free site, since I advocate killing troll posts. But what affect does the aforementioned node have? I don't believe it has any detrimental effect on the site. Nay, it serves as an excellent bad example.

I can't really agree with neshuras post about eliminating Worst Nodes, or portions thereof. There are some nodes that just suck, and as new people find them and add their opinion that they suck, they are agreeing with the set of mores that we operate by. And have reinforced to them what is considered 'A Bad Thing To Do'.

Me? I'd delete NodeReaper. I'd start limiting people adding nodes to Nodes To Consider. Too many people are submitting nodes for the wrong reason. I'd probably bump that up from level 5 to at least 6, and maybe level 7. Not because I don't think Friars aren't capable of making good decisions, but because there is too large a userbase making them. And not always for the most informed reasons.

Death to the NodeReaper and his cherry pie fixation!

My $0.02USD worth...

--Chris

e-mail jcwren

[jorg]

Just commenting on your last paragraph:
Bumping the minimum level from 5 to 6 or 7 is only a temporary solution. PM is like a breeding pit when it comes to XP.
As the userbase is always expanding, more and more people will be casting their votes on posts (either positive or negative).
This will eventually result in more people with a higher level, who themselves have more votes to spend on each level they go up and thus will up the level of others etc etc ..

Perhaps one could modify this genetic programming post to describe a userbase of 100 Monks that regularly post and vote, then see how long it would take before one ends up with 30 allmighty saints, und 70 humble initiates :)

jorg

[$code or die]

Yes, but proportionally, this isn't the case. There are over 750 new users in the last month. I'd guess that only 15 or so monks level 6 and above have actually gone up a level in that time.

I completely agree with jcwren. I'm tired of seeing nodes that have been reaped all over the place. Most of them for no good reason.

Now we have the Editors - they are doing a fantastic job - repairing badly formatted posts. I don't think we need the nodereaper.

$ perldoc perldoc

[johannz]

As a friar, I believe that removing my ability to vote on nodes to consider is not going to help; the problem isn't to many people voting on what nodes to delete. The problem seems to be too many people nominating nodes to be considered.

I rarely put a node on nodes to consider, but I've been proud of the fact that I finally reached a level that I can provide additional input into how the site operates. I believe a much better approach, if this road is followed, is gradually introduce these new powers so as to teach the rising monks what should be on the nodes to consider before they can the ability to put them there.

This might be as simple as giving the ability to vote on nodes to consider at level 6, but not allowing nominating nodes for nodes to consider until level 7. This would give friars the opportunity to participate in the running of the site while still emphasizing the concept of more responsibilty as you increase in rank and teaching what is the commonly accepted guidelines for nodes to consider.

I also feel that allowing lower ranked members to view the nodes to consider node, without voting, is something we should consider. This would be similar to how novices are not allowed to vote when they first join, but they can see how voting works.

[tilly]

I agree that people are considering things that shouldn't be considered. And I also think that the current hack of having people self-identify who considered what is insufficient - the people who are considering like crazy are generally not going to do that.

I would like to see the person who considered automatically identified so that they can get feedback. Add that feedback and I think we will see more limited use of consideration.