Re(3): Am I a power-mad Friar?

[FoxtrotUniform]

Perhaps a text field to enter a reason for frontpaging a node would be in order?

I concur. If we're going to list the names of who frontpaged what, it's reasonable to let them explain why they did it.

Update: I don't necessarily want every frontpaged node to be rigorously justified, boo_radley, but when someone frontpages a node that isn't obviously worthy, it'd be useful to give them a chance to explain their decision. (And NTC gets its share of empty considers, too.) Just a thought.
End Update

On the issue of frontpaging too much, I'd only frontpage one every couple days or so. If a node is worthy. someone else will most likely frontpage it.

I think I've frontpaged one node since reaching Friar. Usually, the impressive nodes have been frontpaged before I get to them.

Update 2: It occurs to me that I don't frontpage nodes mostly because I hang out at Newest Nodes instead of The Monastery Gates, and forget all about this "front page" thing.

Another criterion that I use when deciding whether or not to frontpage something is: "How will this reflect on Perl Monks?" The Monastery Gates is (probably) the first exposure a visitor will have to the site, so I think it's reasonable to exert a bit more editorial criticism when deciding what to put there. (For instance, Juerd's recent comment on a not-so-Friendly home node impressed me, displayed well, and was of above-average overall quality, but I didn't frontpage it -- we don't need to advertise our internal disputes to the rest of the world.) This strikes me as a fairly obvious point, but it should be mentioned.

--
:wq

[boo_radley]

Foxtrot Uniform sez :


I concur. If we're going to list the names of who frontpaged what, it's reasonable to let them explain why they did it.

I dunno about that. The reason the fp messages started showing up was to prevent people from acting on their own nodes; front page nodes get a lot more attention and, therefore, votes. It's a simple mechanism to catch people who are tooting their own horn.

Besides, take a moment to consider what types of SOPWs get FPd, and how that'd look if the persons FPing a node had to explain it all the damn time... We'd see a dozen variations of "good node", "good question" or "well researched". This FP reason field would be little more than noise after a while.

Note that this does differ from the Approval entry for NTC -- there's a lot more variety in the reasons to consider nodes than approve them, and I'd prefer to see your reason for wanting to (eg) delete a node rather than front page it.

Also a big thanks to the gods for polishing up the Approval interface (among many, many other things)

[random]

I generally agree with your comments, but I feel compelled to interject a small note. While I agree we must consider whether any given node will reflect badly on Perl Monks as a community, I'm not sure that controversial nodes should be kept under wraps. For example, the node from Juerd may have started out as an internal squabble, but it evolved into a very interesting discussion about free speech, community, and the rights of the many vs. the rights of the few. I don't necessarily think new visitors should be sheltered from this. These are (in my opinion) among the most thought-provoking debates to come out of our community, and they definitely give a "flavor" of what PerlMonks is all about.

-Mike-