Why was this post considered? The OPs title is perfect. He starts with a string not an array. The array is simply a means to an end.

Why is it still considered after (currently) 16 people have voted?


Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
"I'd rather go naked than blow up my ass"
  • Comment on Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by moritz (Cardinal) on Apr 09, 2010 at 12:31 UTC
    Why was this post considered?

    Because humans make mistakes, I think. Luckily others thought the same as you, and voted for "keep". So the consideration mechanism seems to work.

    Why is it still considered after (currently) 16 people have voted?

    Because none of the Janitors got around to it, I guess.

    But I don't think it hurts in any way, unless you want to write another consideration - in which case you'd probably /msg the Janitors.

    Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.
      Because humans make mistakes,

      One or two I could understand, but 45% of the voters? Be interesting to see the list of voters.

      Because none of the Janitors got around to it, I guess.

      Oh. I though that considerations went away automatically if the voting indicated such. I guess I miss the point of the voting mechanism.

      But I don't think it hurts in any way,

      Really? I though I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        Oh. I though that considerations went away automatically if the voting indicated such. I guess I miss the point of the voting mechanism.

        As far as I understand, the only automatic consequences of voting are reaping. For all other cases, the voting ballot shows the intervening janitor what other monks think about the consideration. See How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?: Consideration amounts to a suggestion that janitors "fix" something.

        Really? I though I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?

        Afaict only approval, front paging and reaping affect visibility, not a consideration as such.

        Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.

        I had to consider the vote for a few minutes.

        The title is certainly odd (iterating over a single item?). On inspection, the question is not about the arrays, so the suggested title doesn't fit either.

        So, in the end, I think a better title would be "Iterating over characters in a string". And then comes the question of whether it would be worth considering.

        I probably would have said no, but given the evident confusion currently, it might actually be worth doing.

Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms. (haste)
by tye (Sage) on Apr 09, 2010 at 14:11 UTC

    It is still considered so that those who have voted on the consideration are able to check back and see how the vote tally has progressed.

    It will be unconsidered automatically after a few weeks since surely nobody will take action on that consideration request.

    I'm sure you could see how it would be frustrating to feel strongly one way or the other about a consideration, vote on it (perhaps before anybody else has voted on it), get involved in one's real life, then come back to the site to check on the consideration and find no evidence of the consideration ever having happened.

    It would be nice to have a consideration log. We don't currently have such. At least until that changes, it is good for considerations to not be removed hastily.

    Thank you for calling attention to overzealous considerations. We still have too many of those, as I've expressed many times. "Don't sweat the small stuff".

    - tye        

      It is still considered so that those who have voted on the consideration are able to check back and see how the vote tally has progressed.

      It will be unconsidered automatically after a few weeks since surely nobody will take action on that consideration request.

      I'm sure you could see how it would be frustrating to feel strongly one way or the other about a consideration, vote on it (perhaps before anybody else has voted on it), get involved in one's real life, then come back to the site to check on the consideration and find no evidence of the consideration ever having happened.

      As seems to be the norm, I find your reasoning utterly specious.

      If the consideration is clearly merited of action, then that action will often be taken forthwith. At which point, your frustrated, but only occasional visitor monks, will have no mechanism to see the relative merit of their actions.

      But if the consideration is of no merit, they'll be able to come back after a few weeks to find that out.

      Way to go man. Democracy in action.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        If the consideration is clearly merited of action, then that action will often be taken forthwith. At which point, your frustrated, but only occasional visitor monks, will have no mechanism to see the relative merit of their actions.

        Actually, if the action taken was reaping, then the vote tally is recorded and can easily be looked up by logged-in members. If the action isn't reaping, then the consideration could still be left up. If it weren't for people often voting "keep" for the case of "it looks like the requested change is not required", avoiding haste in unconsidering after a change is made would indeed offer the same advantage.

        If the action was an edit, then when and who did what is recorded and available. If the action was moving a root node to a different section, then who re-approved the node in the new section is shown. So anybody having concerns / questions can at least ask the person who did the work. That is much less frustrating (and disruptive) than trying to /msg a whole group.

        Of course, for a "consideration [...] clearly merited of action" where "action [is] taken forthwith", such changes could even be done by a janitor with no consideration step at all. The vote tally is of significantly less interest in such cases. If one feels strongly against such changes, then one should probably instead be speaking up to influence site policy to discourage the particular type of change that is being done "forthwith".

        The disadvantages of leaving a consideration "up" after the requested change has been made are also worse than the disadvantages of leaving an unfulfilled consideration "up". Neither scenario is "black and white" but the relative benefits, in sum, fall on opposite sides of the boundary, and quite clearly so, IMO.

        Really? I though[t] I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?

        It seems like at least part of your motivation doesn't exist, despite it appealing to you.

        So, we have real reasons for avoiding haste in removing considerations that might seem unlikely to be acted upon. The reason for removing such a consideration are mostly when it seems likely that a different consideration is called for. The reason of "BrowserUK incorrectly remembers some consequence of a node being considered" is never given much weight, I believe.

        Way to go man. Democracy in action.

        Not all polls constitute a democracy, thankfully. Trying to build a democracy out of a poll where only a single person gets to compose the question to be voted upon would be one particularly stupid way to do such. Of course, this is what we have with reaping due to a variety of contributing factors. My observation is that the majority of poll respondents are quite willing to reap any node that they don't understand if somebody else will label it "reap: spam". That looks more like "mob rule" than "democracy".

        - tye        

        There was a thread on here a couple years ago discussing how a lot of Considerations are not actually acted upon, so I don't think things are as bad you think (or they're bad but in a different way).

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by LanX (Sage) on Apr 09, 2010 at 13:40 UTC
    Why do you ask publicly, instead of messaging the monk who did the consideration ?

    I don't think he will repeat considerations which are denied, so the self regulating system seems to work...

    Or do you see a recurring problem?

    Cheers Rolf

      Why do you ask publicly, instead of messaging the monk who did the consideration ?

      Could he undo his action?

      My post was not to admonish the considerer--there have always been, and probably always will be, overzealous considerations. The point was to draw attention to the fact that they happen; to make people think a little more before they make them; to make people think a little more before they support them; and to wonder aloud if they shouldn't disappear automatically if the voting suggests they should.

      None of which would be accomplished by contacting the considerer in private.


      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by MadraghRua (Vicar) on Apr 09, 2010 at 20:58 UTC
    I have no evidence to support this but perhaps the biologists in the monastery saw it and vote for it, keep it in consideration? It may not be the best solution in the world but it is a useful code snippet for counting bases. Its also nice to see some biology oriented code from time to time.

    MadraghRua
    yet another biologist hacking perl....

      Consideration as a bookmarking mechanism. That's a new one on me.