Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (accountability)

by tye (Sage)
on Sep 10, 2005 at 15:24 UTC ( #490911=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (vote > privilege)
in thread Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation

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        

  • Comment on Re^3: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (accountability)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (accountability)
by jdporter (Canon) on Sep 13, 2016 at 14:47 UTC
    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.

Re^4: Keyword Nodelet / Tagging documentation (accountability)
by castaway (Parson) on Sep 10, 2005 at 16:20 UTC
    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://490911]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (9)
As of 2020-05-29 08:21 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    If programming languages were movie genres, Perl would be:















    Results (168 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?