Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change

Editors editing considerations?

by castaway (Parson)
on Oct 13, 2003 at 18:11 UTC ( #298906=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Just a thought..

It'd be nice if the editors could edit the text of considerations. (Or even if the considerer could edit their own considerations, but thats probably more difficult) - Currently we have to wait until theres enough votes to unconsider, then unconsider, then reconsider.. So being able to just change the text would be nice.

(For such times when people type things like 'dupe of [id:/XXXXXX]', and accidently mistype the id number.)

My idea would be to show the consideration field on the approval nodelet for editors as a text field, which can be changed, and on submit replaces the original considerers name with that of the editor (so we know who to blame :)


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Editors editing considerations?
by gmax (Abbot) on Oct 13, 2003 at 18:54 UTC

    I agree on the need of this improvement.

    If such a feature is to be implemented, though, perhaps it should take into account other needs as well, such as the case of a node considered for the wrong reason.


    1. node id XXXX has a duplicate YYYY. I submit node YYYY for deletion and in the meantime another monk submits node XXXX for the same reason.
    2. Node XXXX has been formatted badly, and an unclosed tag has caused a mangling of the node. Somebody submits it for deletion, because the text displayed looks trollish.
    3. Node XXXX asks something about a dark acronym , and somebody, thinking it is an Off Topic, submits it for deletion.
    4. Node XXXX is submitted for Tutorial. It looks good, also because it is talking about something less than ordinary. However, one of the replies points out that the code shown is completely wrong and misleading. Many people evaluating this node in Nodes to consider don't see the reply and vote "edit."

    In all these cases, editing the consideration field would not solve the problem.

    What should address all these issues, while keeping the spirit of the Monastery, would be the capability of adding a comment to the initial consideration comment.

    If this feature is implemented, the consideration input box doesn't disappear after submission, and other monks can add their own comments to address the problem correctly.

    A stream of comments for case (1) would be:

    Node YYYY [SomeMonk] DELETE - dup of [XXXX] [WiserMonk] DON'T DELETE - [XXXX] has no replies. This one does.

    for case (2):

    Node XXXX [SomeMonk] DELETE - no contents [WiserMonk] KEEP and EDIT - fix <NASTY> tags

    for case (3):

    Node XXXX [SomeMonk] DELETE - Not a Perl Question. We don't do XYZ! [WiserMonk] KEEP - [CPAN://XYZ] is a Perl module

    for case (4):

    Node XXXX [SomeMonk] EDIT - That's great! Promote to Tutorials [WiserMonk] KEEP - Look at [XXXYY]. The code is a mess.

    I believe that such a change would improve the quality of the whole consideration process.

     _  _ _  _  
    (_|| | |(_|><

      I like your idea, but wonder how this is supposed to integrate with the process. After all, commenting on a consideration overlaps with voting on it. (You are voicing your opinion about it.)

      I can't quite put forth reasoned arguments, but I my gut feeling is (and I hope it is somewhat obvious why) that it's strongly preferrable to have this feature restricted so the consideration nodelet can't become a sideband discussion of the node.

      Maybe the comment should be an optional part of the voting procedure (as in there's a text field where you can add your quip when you vote). It would force a vote out of anyone who wants to comment, avoiding the consideration discussion stalling the actual consideration process. It would also restrict consideration comments to a single-shot opportunity for each voting monk.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

      I agree with Aristotle, this would be overloading the Approval process a little. Such discussions should probably take place on the Editors' Wiki.

      Which, in my opinion, should possibly be more reachable to facilitate this, ie. a text box in the editors nodelet to write directly to the Wiki, and possibly a list of recent comments shown at the bottom of Nodes to consider or nodes requiring editing.

      (Although, not all those that may consider things are editors, and thus don't have access to the wiki.)

      On the whole, the actual votes themselves should reflect your list of possibilities (with possible exception of the people with itchy 'delete' fingers ;)


Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://298906]
Approved by gmax
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (5)
As of 2023-12-11 17:15 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    What's your preferred 'use VERSION' for new CPAN modules in 2023?

    Results (41 votes). Check out past polls.