Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?

A couple of site changes

by tye (Sage)
on Sep 17, 2002 at 21:03 UTC ( #198644=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

A couple of minor site changes:

1) You must now be level 4 before you can add new categorized questions. Others will get a link to Seekers of Perl Wisdom instead of a form for adding new questions (like Anonymous Monk has received for a while).

2) A considered node that has 4 "edit" votes will not be reaped if it gets 5 "delete" votes. This means that a considered node is reaped when someone casts a 5th or later "delete" vote on the node if and only if all of the following are true:

  • The node has a negative reputation
  • The node has fewer than 2 "keep" votes
  • The node has fewer than 4 "edit" votes
I also added a link to On Responsible Considerations in the help link of the approval nodelet.

I would appreciate it if someone from Site Documentation Clan would include the above items in appropriate place(s). Other things to note: Only editors can unconsider a node and only after it has either 2 "edit" votes or 4 "keep" votes.

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: A couple of site changes
by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on Sep 18, 2002 at 02:39 UTC

    Very nice, hopefully it'll keep down "accidental deletes".

    I was thinking a couple of changes to the interface would do the trick also:

    1. Change the vote buttons in Nodes to consider to a "Yea" and "Nay".
    2. Add a "Consider for delete" checkbox in Approval nodelet

    This gets rid of the problem of people voting "delete" on nodes that have been considered for editing (some people seem to vote delete on everything). It also lets auto-delete work: if "consider for delete" is checked, and there are 5 "yea" and less than 2 (4?) "nay" votes, NodeReaper swings his scythe. Finally, an editor could remove the node from consideration if there were more than 4 "nay" votes.

    I think that covers it. Have I overlooked something? I think the code changes aren't very big, but I could easily have overlooked something that makes this difficult and/or impossible. Guidance and comments welcome.

      No, if someone considers a node for 'delete', I still want to be able to say "yes, it sucks, but it'd be better to edit it than delete it". And I don't want someone trying to prevent deletion of a troll by considering it for "non delete" and thus requiring a bunch of "nay" votes and then unconsideration, etc. before it can be reaped.

      We have a design for selecting "consideration type" but it is more than just "delete/other" and was mostly thought up as a way to provide feedback because we were getting a lot of considerations that a lot of people felt strongly against and were spending a lot of effort to "fix" things and not getting anywhere. But footpad's best node seems to have made a huge improvement.

      I'd like to add a "consider it" checkbox so that it will look less like the chatterbox and typing "/msg paco Who are you?" w/o checking the box will get you a warning, not an invalid consideration (and disable "/msg ..." as a consideration reason) but I wanted the code for the two related nodelets merged before making more changes that would make merging more difficult.

      Oh, one of the enhancements in the "consideration type" design was a consideration type of "duplicate" which would require a node ID be entered into the reason field and would do some automated things to make dealing with duplicates go more smoothly. This still might be worth doing but it isn't as easy nor as important as some other things that I still don't have time to do, so I wouldn't hold my breath. (:

              - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

      Good call, VSarkiss.

      I like the idea of a specific "consider for delete" option, with unspecified considerations effectively asking for an edit. I don't notice it as much anymore, but there are still a fair number of ambiguous considerations, which I tend to vote "Keep" on only because of the ambiguity: the nodes might merit changing, but I'd hate for someone to think that I voted to delete an otherwise salvageable node....

      The only thing I'd add would be an "abstain" button, both in Nodes to consider and in general voting on nodes. This idea has been raised before, and I still like it....

      F o x t r o t U n i f o r m
      Found a typo in this node? /msg me
      The hell with paco, vote for Erudil!

Re: A couple of site changes
by talexb (Canon) on Sep 17, 2002 at 23:10 UTC

    ++ on the node, not only in thanks for the work you have done and continue to do for the site, but also for your thoughtful posts. I followed 'On Responsible Considerations' back in time and read several of the linked nodes (this, this, and especially this) and 45 minutes later (near as I can tell) I am back at the original page (thanks be for Mozilla).

    Just in case you're wondering if anyone out there is listening :) we hear, O Great One, and we thank you.

    ps When I was first involved with PC software development back in 1985 I started using a communications program called PC-Talk. It was terrific, and I greatly enjoyed using it until I heard (on The Well, my first on-line community) that the authour had jumped off the Golden Gate bridge. That hit hard.

    There really are real people out there, folks. Be gentle.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://198644]
Approved by myocom
Front-paged by rob_au
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (3)
As of 2021-12-06 22:05 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    R or B?

    Results (33 votes). Check out past polls.