Re^2: Petty janitor post vandalism

[footpad]

I have to admit that I had a few misgivings about that one. However, the vote tally was clearly in favor of making the edit.

I do think that some of us are a little too aggressive in their weeding, but when the vote gets lopsided, it seems wise to take care of the problem without letting it fester.

If you disagree with my edits, you're free to /msg me privately. I'll happily share my thinking (which is, of course, why I leave the record).

--f

[LanX]

Well, the consideration was

haukex: Edit: s/h1/b/g (2019-12-22 07:09:13) 1/14/0

nothing else, especially no mention of "Updating the HTML tags to modern use"

I'm also pretty sure that we have help pages discouraging the use from h1 to h4 because they render extremely here.

Anyway I was always an advocate of better CSS settings in the monastery.

I adjusted them for me in a way that h1 doesn't bother me anymore.

update

I concur with jdporter that this is not a big drama, no matter what this ano-monk tries to pull out of it.

[haukex]

I'm also pretty sure that we have help pages discouraging the use from h1 to h4 because they render extremely here.

Yes, that's exactly why I made the consideration, Perl Monks Approved HTML tags discourages <h1> and <h2>, and it does disrupt the formatting significantly when used in the middle of a post/thread somewhere, especially on some mobile browsers, where the differences in font sizes are even more extreme. If it had been posted by a registered user, I would have /msg'd them first, but this was of course posted by Anonymous Monk, so there's no other option than consideration. (If I had the time, I might even look at the routines that filter the nodes' HTML, to see if those tags could be rejected automatically for AM posts. Or look at whether there might be some CSS changes possible to mitigate the effect.)

[LanX]

> (If I had the time, I might even look at the routines that filter the nodes' HTML, to see if those tags could be rejected automatically for AM posts

that could be generally done by patching approved html tags °

I suppose it might create backwards compatibility issues.

Also coding an exception for AM is feasible, but I'm shying away from making things more complicated.

> Or look at whether there might be some CSS changes possible to mitigate the effect.)

Most of our culture is from a time where not all clients supported CSS.

I think a logarithmic scale would be nice.

But I have to admit that my settings don't always render reliably on mobile-chrome ...

°) looks like I accidentally did submit a patch, no idea how this happened.(?)

[footpad]

Did you discuss it with anyone first? Fellow janitors? Gods?

I did not, for pretty much the same reasons that haukex outlined in his reply. (One thing I'll add is that modern SEO guidance suggests that sites/pages are punished for abusing Hx elements.) Otherwise, I relied on my experience and intuition.

At 14:1, the direction of the vote tally was pretty clear (especially since I was reasonably certain I posted the lone "keep" vote). Other changes have been made with lower consideration ratios.)

Indeed, if it hadn't been an <H1> issue, I might've been tempted to quietly unconsider the node and move on.

Thus, my misgivings weren't whether the <H1> was going to be edited, but rather how to do so in a way that kept as much of the original voice, tone, and intent (while perhaps blunting the snarkasm a shade).

And as far as the other edits go, those were also thoughtful and considered. As I'm sure you're aware, the site's framework was developed under the rules of HTML ~3.x. Modern markup is different. We're supposed to use semantic elements and to close tags that need to be closed. (Such cleanup is a habit, something I've done pretty much since I first became a janitor.) Given that such changes do not affect the content of the node, it's hard to see them as "vandalism.")

(I also clean up common language mistakes such as misused "it's", "you're", "they're", and so on. When I mention it in my change notes, it's a gentle heads-up to the attentive.)

In any event, none of my changes were meant to be petty or to vandalize.

Like haukex, I generally prefer to handle such things quietly, privately /msg-ing the OP with suggestions.

My advice to the AM is, essentially, log in and post publicly. I continue to believe that transparency is the best way to contribute effectively.

--f

P.S. I'm sure someone will chime in that this should be seen as another reason why anonymous posting should be disabled. I respectfully disagree.

[erzuuli]

Maybe things were different the last time you were an editor — what, 15 years ago? — but as I understand it today, none of your stated objectives/concerns are valid reasons for editing someone else's node, even anonymous ones. (The one exception would be to close unclosed tags; and that's minor enough that it doesn't (imho) warrant an "edited by" note. Fixing actual broken markup is within scope.)

I'm sure someone will chime in that this should be seen as another reason why anonymous posting should be disabled

I'll wait until someone actually says that before I start telling them they're wasting their breath. :-)

[jdporter]

Ok, you had some misgivings. Did you discuss it with anyone first? Fellow janitors? Gods?

I'll note that janitors are given, and expected to use, their discretion. They're not enslaved to the vote count. (Please, no Electoral College jokes. :-)