Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: editor delete votes (keep)

by tye (Sage)
on Jul 15, 2005 at 04:46 UTC ( [id://475115]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: editor delete votes
in thread editor delete votes

It should be keep+(edit/2) >= 3; changed from the current keep+(edit/2) >= 2. I like increasing the counts, as we haven't had any real trolls in years and we've had quite a bit of overreaping.

But I also prefer janitor unreap over janitor approval.

I support the "janitor reap" vote, but I realized that I'd be against a lot of reaps that would result because I was against the reaping of a lot of nodes that more than one janitor voted to nuke despite official policy being not to do that at all.

But I think the solution for that is "janitor keep" votes. But with the small number of janitors, picking the numbers get trickier. Perhaps, using "keep:reap" notation, 0:3 would reap as would 1:5, but 2 or more "janitor keep" votes would prevent janitorial reaping.

I'd also only allow janitorial reap/keep votes if the node is already considered. This has two advantages. First, it means that the reaped node has "reason" and "considered by" displayed like a normally reaped node. Second, it allows the janitorial vote to be reset by unconsidering.

Going back to regular consideration votes. I think I'd like a sliding scale there as well. So, using "keep+int(edit/2):delete" notation, 0:8 would reap. As would 1:12, 2:16, 3:20, 4:24. So, if the delete votes reach at least 8+4*(keep+int(edit/2)), then the node would be auto reaped. But I think there needs to be a ceiling to avoid encouraging "rabble rousing" to try to overpower some conscientious 'keep' votes. And so 4 'keep' votes is enough to prevent non-janitorial auto-reaping no matter how many 'delete' votes come in.

Also note that janitorial reap does not require a negative reputation.

- tye        

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: editor delete votes (keep)
by 5mi11er (Deacon) on Jul 18, 2005 at 16:45 UTC
    (sliding votes) - Yes, exactly! The thing that bothered me the most was that given a hypothetical vote of 3 keep, 25 delete, we'd end up keeping the post even though most people thought deleting it was the "right" thing to do. I think a sliding vote type system would resolve that issue, yet ensure that excessive reaping wouldn't become a bigger problem.

    -Scott

      I think 2 keep votes is enough that nothing automatic should happen. What we need is a system to allow manual reaping other than pestering a god to force-reap. I'd hate to see that keep limit become variable.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://475115]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (7)
As of 2024-04-23 11:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found