in reply to Modify choices for Nodes to Consider

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.
  • Comment on Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by talexb (Canon) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:46 UTC

    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        

        Ahhhhhhhhhhhh .. thank you. My brain finally understands. "Edit" can also be about location, and not just content. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

        Alex / talexb / Toronto

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

      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.)
Re^2: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by GrandFather (Saint) on Jan 05, 2006 at 22:11 UTC

    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

        too verbose

        DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel

        That’s misworded. The node is already published. The question you are answering is “what action should the janitors take on this node?“

        If there should be any changes, I’d vote for changing “keep” to “leave,” and maybe also for changing “edit” to “fix,” but I don’t know that the labels really need changing.

        Makeshifts last the longest.