in reply to Quick feedback option for downvotes
If you had bothered to search, you would have found that this has already been discussed. E.g.
My advice: just ask in the Chatterbox.
A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
Re^2: Quick feedback option for downvotes
by Rhandom (Curate) on Mar 14, 2007 at 22:18 UTC
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
I realize those threads, and others they link to in turn, are rather lengthy, so I don't expect you to have read them all exhaustively; but I get the impression you only read the root nodes. If you read the threads, you find that the consensus is opposed to your (and your predecessors') proposition. In particular, it gets virtually no support from the site policy makers and the site programmers, so it should come as no surprise that nothing has been done about it. Update: see tye's response below.
Perhaps we need a section of "topics...
That's also not likely to happen. See the FAQ: I think there should be a new Section on PerlMonks for Jobs/Modules/Quizzes/Perl6/Newbies/OffTopic/etc.
> > > > What we really need is a workable keyword tagging system.
We have keywords, but for some reason, the gods consider it to be a security hazard, or something, so it hasn't been enabled for non-special users.
A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
so it should come as no surprise that nothing has been done about it
The "/msg author" link was added.
We have keywords, but for some reason, the gods consider it to be a security hazard, or something, so it hasn't been enabled for non-special users.
Nice unsubstantiated speculation. Feel free to add whatever keywords you want. They aren't disable for non-special users. But they aren't particularly useful either. And I don't know how you imagine keywords can be a security problem. The closest thing to that is the fact that there is no accountability nor reasonable system in place to deal with abuses (which isn't the same as security) so there is nothing to stop me from tagging all of your nodes with whatever abusive term I feel like applying to you and no (easy) way of telling that I was even the one who did it.
I've seen some proposals to try making keywords more useful but I haven't been convinced that any of them would really work at making them that useful, would deal well with abuses, or would be simple enough to ever get implemented. Unless a proposal is likely to meet all three of those criteria, I don't see much point. Some people have decided to start adding keywords, I believe, even though there is still no real use for them nor solid plans.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suddenly, I'm very interested in these tags you mention. Is there a place to read about them? Where did you hear about them?
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|