(Sugestion) Meta Descriptions

In a response to Being a monk: why you'll love it, why you'll hate it, I began musing about what is OT, and what is not. There have been discussions regarding this issue. Most of the time, the conclusion has been 'there are better sights for those issues', or 'I like the suggestion of implementing a separate section' or 'I dislike this suggestion'. However, I don't think any of these comments really address the issue at hand:

Perlmonks has a good system for meta-moderation, possibly the best-implemented system I've seen. For the most part, nodes that are too OT, and nodes that are insulting are reaped, as other nodes suffer the wear and tear of reputation. Although this systems serves its role of keeping the site cohesively perl, I feel like it doesn't provide monks with enough information about nodes. I would suggest a meta-description system to provide appropriate information. An example of such a system would be slashdot: Slashdot incorporates a system where users can classify posts. However this system goes to far by mixing meta-moderation with description. Users vote on nodes, and give them descriptions, in order to justify their votes. The sentiment has been repeatedly voiced that a joy of the current moderation/reputation system is that users are not forced to justify their votes.

Maybe a more comprehensive perl-monks system could be useful? One where users above a specific level (I would pick something above voting level, in order to make sure descriptions are valid,) would be able to greater describe a post. This would allow users who don't want to see OT posts to disqualify posts that have been overtly described as that (and therefore marked with an OT flag.) It would work for other types of posts as well. Are you not interested in 'CGI' posts? Then you would be able to set your preferences not to show nodes marked as that. I would think one could adapt the slash code to make a separate box to do this?

This would stop the questions of 'is this OT', unless something borders OOT (off-off-topic), because users, instead of some arbitrary measuring stick, would decide OT. It would also allow for a greater distinction between levels of OT, and other things, tye permitting :)

Gyan Kapur
gyan.kapur@rhhllp.com

Comment on (Sugestion) Meta Descriptions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (Sugestion) Meta Descriptions by sauoq (Abbot) on Oct 16, 2002 at 01:30 UTC
We do have a keyword nodelet for attaching keywords to nodes but I don't think it is used very much. I don't use it myself at any rate. I kind of see how this might be interesting but I don't see it as fitting in here. One of the things that seems to make the voting system work so well (if you are like me and believe it does) is its simplicity. I don't think I'd be motivated to categorize nodes but a simple upvote, downvote, or don't bother decision takes very little thought. Relatively speaking, most posts here seem to be on-topic. There isn't much of a problem at all with OT posts. Even the ones that are off-topic are as likely as not to be marked as such in the subject and if they aren't they are usually quickly considered for that edit. As you noted yourself, if they are way off-topic or offensive they get considered for deletion. Finally, the Super Search does help a great deal in finding nodes if you are interested in a particular subject or have a particular question. -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply]
Re: (Sugestion) Meta Descriptions by jjdraco (Scribe) on Oct 16, 2002 at 06:29 UTC
One small point I'd like to add to the above statement is: even if the topic isn't what I'm interested in I'll at least look it over quick, I think it helps me to see things I normally wouldn't get a chances to and it may come up in the futures. Learn what ever you can I say jjdraco learning Perl one statement at a time.	[reply]


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks