http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=521293


in reply to Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
in thread Modify choices for Nodes to Consider

Since this thread is my fault, I'd like to state that updating the documentation would be fine -- the existing radio button setup just goes against the grain of my brain, and I thought I'd mention it. Perha[s the documentation could be update to say something like, "In the case where a node move is suggested, the 'edit' choice agrees with that suggestion, and the 'keep' choice disagrees.

And mix and match as appropriate (for other considerations).

Alex / talexb / Toronto

"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

  • Comment on Re^2: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider ("edit")
by tye (Sage) on Jan 05, 2006 at 18:26 UTC

    In the case of a consideration requesting that a node be moved between sections, an "edit" vote expesses support for editting the location of the node.

    - tye        

[reply]

      Ahhhhhhhhhhhh .. thank you. My brain finally understands. "Edit" can also be about location, and not just content. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

      Alex / talexb / Toronto

      "Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds

[reply]

        Think 'edit' in terms of 'alter' or 'modify' or 'change'.

        ---
        $world=~s/war/peace/g

[reply]
Re^3: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by sfink (Deacon) on Jan 09, 2006 at 05:32 UTC
    I have never voted on consideration for precisely the reason you started this thread -- the choices have never made any sense to me, and the effort required to decipher what the options mean is far greater than the amount that I care about any consideration I've seen. After having read this thread, I finally understand what the choices are supposed to represent.

    Maybe I'm just... cognitively challenged, but I think it is very possible that there are others who have the same problem. In which case, the current wording is lowering the level of participation. (...then again, perhaps it is just keeping us idiots out...)

    I would definitely prefer something like 

      () keep  () change  () reap  () abstain
    (I'm not crazy about "nada" either.)
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion