Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by ambrus (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 16:23 UTC
|
No. Keep the options as they are now.
I think keep is exactly the right word for not moving a node. Edit is indeed not a very good description for moving, but I don't like the words "yes" and "no". "Edit/move" would be sort of acceptable, but "yes" and "no" would IMO make improper considerations more frequent. It could make the impression that consideration is not a moderation tool but a general way to decide something about the post. (Especially because the nodelet title is "Approval Nodelet" instead of the more approperiate "Moderation Nodelet".) Yes, I know the documentated policy is against such misusage, but that's not enough.
Also you don't usually consider a node for moving: you either move it or consider for unapproving so that it can be moved.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
I'd say that for a move, "yes" and "no" are excellent choices. "yes"/"no" may be bad choices for different questions, but then different questions should have different answers to pick from.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by Roy Johnson (Monsignor) on Jan 05, 2006 at 17:22 UTC
|
I'm in favor of modifying the documentation, not the option labels. The choices are relatively clear: keep means do nothing, nada means don't vote, reap means reap, and edit means do some sort of janitoring short of reaping. I don't think adding "no" and "yes" will, on average, make things more clear. If someone can come up with a 4-letter word that encompasses all kinds of janitoring short of reaping, I'd be in favor of replacing "edit".
A three-letter word that I think would work is "fix". I'd also go for "salvage".
Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
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
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
|
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] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
What about the following?
() Publish As Is () Publish After Editing/Moving () Reap () Abstain
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by vagnerr (Prior) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:39 UTC
|
Sounds good to me, it would also save the "keep for no, edit for yes" that you occasionaly see in the consider message. Keeps everything nice and simple.
I would also like to suggest that the consider nodelet does something like
()-keep/no ()-edit/yes ()-reap ()-nada
too, as sometimes its a little confusing when it wraps.
_______________________________________________________
Remember that amateurs built Noah's Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by ysth (Canon) on Jan 06, 2006 at 10:00 UTC
|
For cases where the labels don't exactly fit, the consideration reason should specify what they will mean, e.g. "Move from SoPW to Meditations (edit=move)". | [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by tirwhan (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:44 UTC
|
To me this seems more confusing than the old options, especially if you consider (heh) a consideration of "Delete because of xxxx". How many people will then click on "edit/yes" when they actually mean "reap"?
A computer is a state machine. Threads are for people who can't program state machines. -- Alan Cox
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
() keep/don't move () edit/move () reap () nada
Alex / talexb / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
Re: Modify choices for Nodes to Consider
by sauoq (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2006 at 15:49 UTC
|
()yes ()no ()null
If the consideration is to delete the node, then "yes" would mean "reap". Reap votes on nodes that haven't been considered for deletion are, I think, generally unnecessary.
P.S. I like "stumbit" too, but "nada" irks me.
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
|
Unfortunately, there are times when the consideration asks for, or allows for, both edit and reap as alternatives. Prime example: off-topic nodes.
We're building the house of the future together.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |
|
So, let's just get rid of ambiguous considerations too. I really don't think off-topic nodes should be reaped in the vast majority of cases. Reaping is for trolls. OT posts should simply never be approved. (Though, marking them 'OT' might be reasonable as well.)
-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |