Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (vote > privilege)

by castaway (Parson)
on Sep 10, 2005 at 13:55 UTC ( #490892=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (vote > privilege)
in thread Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation

I think you have a good point re the usergroup, it may start off well, but would probably not keep uptodate much or stay that way.

Voting as such is a nice idea, though as you say it will produce a lot of data. Which reminds me that I added, and then removed again, the "Rating" field, and you've reminded me what that was - we already keep track of how many times a keyword was added to a particular node, which is sort of like voting, only doesn't store who added which keyword, and allows users to add the same keyword multiple times themselves.

Having this as a level power sounds like a good idea.

I wasn't really out to *design* a new keyword system, so much as make the existing one more usable. With a search at least *I* can find stuff I've keyworded the same, and with a documentation, theres a slightly increased chance that others will use the same or similar ones.

If its a concern of the size the table will get, how about attaching the keywords to the nodes themselves somehow? (In the node table, since I'd like to be able to tag everything and anything), although that wouldn't solve the "who tagged it" problem (if there is one).

I'm not entirely sure I understand why there would be any use for anyone abusing the vote-on-keyword thing at all, the search will/should show rating(relevanace), but can be sorted by many other criteria. Also since keywords can be removed, all the effort would go to waste fairly quickly. Adding keywords to someones nodes should *not* IMO, give XP of any kind, either to the adder or the node owner. Limiting votes will just get us less keywords..

Does this mean you don't approve of a documentation at all, currently, or just that you'd like a better system in the future. (This solution will mostly solve my itch, at least, even if I'm the only one using it..)

C.

  • Comment on Re^2: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (vote > privilege)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (accountability)
by tye (Sage) on Sep 10, 2005 at 15:24 UTC

    The abuse I predict is someone tagging every node by merlyn as "bull..." and other rude, abusive, and obscene tags being thrown in because that's what many children are prone to do when given an anonymous way to scribble on the walls.

    Adding a keyword is so trivially easy while finding the offense, considering it, and getting a privileged user to remove it, is severals times more work. So I bet that increased visibility of the keyword system will eventually lead to an annoying amount of abuse.

    Which reminds me that part of thee value of voting is abuser correction, not just abuse correction.

    One idea would be a non-XP point system whereby adding keywords that get downvoted cost you points such that you can't add keywords as frequently...

    I'm not saying your patch shouldn't be applied. But I personally wouldn't spend time implementing a privileged keywording group and would be prepared for the keyword system needing to be disabled until a major overhaul happens.

    - tye        

      The abuse I predict is someone tagging every node by merlyn as "bull..." and other rude, abusive, and obscene tags being thrown in ...

      Indeed; I recently reviewed the list of extant keywords, and found that the mass of them were abusive, not on posts, but on user homenodes. Needless to say, I deleted all those.

      Ah, I see your point.. I guess I was being a little slow.

      I like the idea of a self-contained system in which users confirm each others choices and those whose choices are disapproved of can add less keywords.

      Ok, dropped the group idea already, was more of an aftersight while writing the node anyway..

      Meanwhile, did you have any ideas of "standards" for the docs?

      C.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://490892]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (4)
As of 2020-06-07 07:16 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Do you really want to know if there is extraterrestrial life?



    Results (42 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?