First, the proposal for PM: an additional flag for nodes that would indicate that it should not be displayed directly on the site (eg, not on front page, section lists, Newest Nodes, or via searches), though it would still be there for anyone to view if you knew the node #. More on mechanics in a bit.
Now, why ask for this? I can think of at least 3 reasons, somewhat related.
- Let's say I write up a large-ish node on the order of a tutorial, code, or review. However, before I want to distribute it to PM as a whole, I'd like to have it reviewed by a few additional monks, and incorporate their comments or any other changes they might offer before the node is live. Setting such a node as private would aid in this.
- Along the same lines, if I'm writing up a long node or something that takes time to compile despite writing most of it off-site, and I need to put the work down for some time, the ability to put the current work in a private node such that the work is actually saved to the site until I have time to return to it would be helpful as well.
- In the CB this morning, I saw someone ask for a somewhat lengthy bit (more than 3 lines ) of code, which would not be best put in the CB, but wasn't difficult enough to put in to a full-fledged question (in this case, it appears the person read the doc and faq, but still was confused how to do a given step, one that 99.99% of the experiences monks know how to do). A scratch node where I would write out the short bit of code and then point the user to, would be helpful as well.
You can only set this flag on node creation and once you remove it, the flag can never be reset. When you are creating any node, now, this means you'll get 3 buttons on the one page: 'preview', 'submit', and 'keep private'. Private nodes will appear in your user node listing in case you forget them (and out to be marked as well). In addition, while the flag is set, the author should be able to delete the node without problems (eg, toss out scratch nodes without wasting high-level times).
From what I would figure, this change would require an additional column in the database, and a bit of logic, so it's not trivial; in addition, much of this is mostly convience for the end user and is not trying to make up for lack of key features on the site (eg the above examples could be done currently with an offsite URL, offsite text file, and pasting into the CB, respectively).
Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com
||
"You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
|
Re: Private/In-Progress/Sratch nodes?
by arhuman (Vicar) on Apr 05, 2001 at 16:32 UTC
|
I like this Idea !
For all the reasons you gave,
(especially the auto-delete feature,
to clean all those nodes which are useful only for a short time)
but also beccause it would enable us (among other benefits) to do several funny things :
It would enable the use of hyperlinked nodes with only one node apparent...
Why ? I once asked for a workshop area,
this mechanism would give us almost all we need for this workshop Area.
With this mechanism we could post a node
(titled '(WORKSHOP) workshop1')
with several links to private nodes :
- (workshop1) Current members
- (workshop1) Todo
- (workshop1) Done
- ...
We would have all the flexibility needed to add/modify private nodes to fit our needs,
and split a workshop into several manageable part/sub-project,
without flooding the monastery (as they won't appear anywhere)
with nodes which don't mean anything alone...
"Only Bad Coders Badly Code In Perl" (OBC2IP)
| [reply] |
Re (tilly) 1: Private/In-Progress/Sratch nodes?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Apr 06, 2001 at 06:47 UTC
|
vroom is in the process of building a wiki that would be
mixed with PerlMonks. The main point of it would be to
allow site documentation to be maintained, but a wiki
could be set up for exactly the kind of interactive use
you describe above. | [reply] |
Re: Private/In-Progress/Sratch nodes?
by chipmunk (Parson) on Apr 09, 2001 at 20:38 UTC
|
FYI, for number 3, I like to use my home node when I want to provide a brief code snippet to go along with a CB conversation.
Then I forget to remove the code snippet after the other user has seen it, leading to questions about why I have odd, random bits of code in my home node. :)
P.S. It's worth noting that, under your proposal, people using tilly's PerlMonks Navigator would see all the private nodes. | [reply] |
|
|
In regards to the P.S., using 'private' is a misnomer here, moreso 'unlinked until linked'. I fully expect that under such a system, no nodes would be considered private (thus preventing use of such a system for storage of personal information). I would also make sure that when such nodes are displayed at PM, a large enough warning is given to the reader to understand that this node has been indicated as a work-in-progress and should be treated as such; I'd also prevent these nodes from being voted on until they reach the standard public status.
Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com
||
"You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
| [reply] |
Re: Private/In-Progress/Sratch nodes?
by athomason (Curate) on Apr 05, 2001 at 22:29 UTC
|
I like the idea of a private scratch area for sharing larger bits of info, but I'd be concerned about potential DoS attacks the feature might introduce. If nodes are effectively invisible to all but the creator, what's to stop someone from creating a thousand scratch nodes with thousands of lines of junk each? Though this could happen now, there wouldn't be any checks that public nodes have. Some intelligent limits or quotas (e.g. 50k scratch space in 5 nodes per user) would likely curtail the problem. | [reply] |
|
|
First, they would not be 100 % invisible. As long as one knew the number, they could get to it. And if I see two consecutive newest nodes, 70500 and 70502, I can probably geuss that 70501 is a 'private' node, and I can just type that into a url to see it.
To solve the problem with people abusing the system, simply limit the number of private nodes one user may have (I see no reason to have more than 5 at a time, for example), and *possibly* limit the ability to above a certain monk level, maybe 3 or so, so that throwaway accounts aren't used to DoS the site.
Dr. Michael K. Neylon - mneylon-pm@masemware.com
||
"You've left the lens cap of your mind on again, Pinky" - The Brain
| [reply] |
Re: Private/In-Progress/Sratch nodes?
by Fingo (Monk) on Apr 07, 2001 at 04:59 UTC
|
Great idea!
Vroom might not have the time to add this feature now, so a temporary solution might be a "private" or "misc" section of PerlMonks so that people could make nodes like these, and not clutter up the other sections. | [reply] |
|
|
