http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=366491


in reply to Re^5: Auto NodeReaper Approval (stop)
in thread Auto NodeReaper Approval

tye, I think you totally summed up what I was asking in the first place, and maybe wasn't getting my point accross. The whole purpose of my original question was to make sure that I was doing things right for the site. I like the idea of a "disapproved" selection, because I have found nodes that I believe need some help. I have read the site documentation on the approval process.

Only editors are supposed to be able to approve reaped nodes.


I don't want to, nor have I ever tried to approve a reaped, only the Reaper owned nodes that appear after the reaped node is replaced. My original question only applies to those Reaper nodes that appear in the approval/moderation portion of the page. Should the Reaper nodes be unmoderated? I think that it should, because it provides only an informational source, not a content source of the original message. Isn't it just a placeholder of the original message? I also think that these nodes should have the ++/-- radials taken off of them. No need to vote on them. (Not that I have!!)

In the mean time, I will no longer approve any of the Reaper nodes. I don't want to create any problems for the site, I am only trying to make it better. Thanks tye, chromatic and Happy-the-monk, I appreciate the clarifications and the opportunity to correspond with each of you.

Paulster2


You're so sly, but so am I. - Quote from the movie Manhunter.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Auto NodeReaper Approval ("approve")
by tye (Sage) on Jun 15, 2004 at 04:08 UTC
    I don't want to, nor have I ever tried to approve a reaped [node],

    To quote myself from earlier in this thread

    FYI, it isn't "another" node, just the same node with the ownership and content changed and approval removed.
    So that is the reaped node. You aren't approving the reaped content, because that content has been removed from the reaped node and moved to another location that isn't even a node. What is left is the same node (because it has the same node_id and so any links that pointed to the node before it was reaped still point to it after it has been reaped). Yes, it's just a matter of terminology, but since I'd already covered this and it was getting in the way of us communicating, I guess the terminology matters if we're going to talk about this.

    Should the Reaper nodes be unmoderated? I think that it should, because it provides only an informational source, not a content source of the original message.

    A node being approved means that it is appropriate for the section that it is posted in. It causes the node to be displayed to anyone who visits that section's main page (for a while). Not approving a node means that our visitors who don't care to see behind the curtain and deal with approval and related issues aren't distracted by things that aren't considered appropriate, that don't serve the purpose of the section.

    Also, I think that many people vote to have a node reaped, in no small part, for the purpose of removing its approval.

    So, no, I don't think reaped nodes should be approved. And I think the bug should be fixed so that only janitors are allowed to approve them. Sometimes it is nice to publicly display examples of what shouldn't be posted and why. But I think that is more appropriately done by not reaping marginal nodes and pointing out the problem(s) in replies. Reaped nodes should not be advertised to casual visitors.

    - tye        

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion