Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery

Considering duplicates

by kudra (Vicar)
on Jun 24, 2001 at 12:23 UTC ( #91039=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

I know that this has been mentioned in the chatterbox, and was also addressed by neophyte under a different subject, but I want to mention it again because the message seems forgotten.

I, for one, would really appreciate it if people would take a little more time when considering duplicates to name or link to the node that is being duplicated. I see several advantages to doing this:

Each voter can verify that the node is in fact a duplicate according to her or his definitions of duplication. For example, one of my nodes was considered as a duplicate because someone else posted an answer while I was composing mine. It's also possible for the word duplicate to mean 'someone asked this question just yesterday.' Neither of these are what I consider duplicates (to me a duplicate is when the same person posts the same thing), and I would vote to keep both of these nodes.

In verifying that the node is a duplicate, each voter can also vote responsibly. Right now it would probably be possible for me to consider a perfectly fine node, say it is a duplicate, and have it deleted (although it would be reinstated later). It wouldn't have to be malice, it could be a simple accident. There are also people who, when they feel they have insufficient information, vote to keep or edit the node. In the case of a real duplicate, these votes could prevent reaping.

At times both the original node and the duplicate are considered as duplicates. It should be clear that they are considered in relation to each other--so that people know one consideration was accidental--rather than in relation to a third post which doesn't actually exist.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Considering duplicates
by footpad (Abbot) on Jun 24, 2001 at 20:39 UTC

    Great I'm take advantage of by adding a few things that've been bugging me lately:

    When a post is a true duplicate (original author submitted twice without substantial rewrite/rework), it would really help if people would see if either post has replies. If so, then consider the one that doesn't have substantial replies.

    And, while we're on the subject, please enter reasons when you consider nodes. Almost every time a node has been considered "silently," I've had to vote Keep--because my personal copy of PSI::ESP seems to have a bad install, if you know what I mean.

    Finally, I do not believe the following reasons are valid reasons to consider nodes:

    • "vague"
    • "answered previously"
    • "again?"
    • "poor composition skills"
    • "off-topic"

    While these may not be the best nodes on the site, they generally are posted by new members or people who haven't yet learned the ropes. Please consider these opportunities to welcome and educate, rather than to criticize and rebuff. If we want people to feel welcome, then you need to roll out the mat and start smiling when they show up. Please treat them as guests, and not "freaking [l]users."


Re: Considering duplicates
by mpolo (Chaplain) on Jun 24, 2001 at 17:12 UTC
    It would help here if the links to the duplicates used the id:// format, as well, since a reason saying "duplicate of 42304" (number picked totally at random) just invites the considerers to "trust" the one who originally considered the node.

    Just a couple of days ago, both a node and its duplicate were in the list to consider, and in the end prudence won out, leaving both to survive the voting (one with 4 keeps, the other with 2, I believe), leaving it up to a janitor to sort out the mess.

    If we just, err, consider for a moment before considering a node, we'd do ourselves a great favor.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://91039]
Approved by root
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (8)
As of 2023-12-04 09:58 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    What's your preferred 'use VERSION' for new CPAN modules in 2023?

    Results (25 votes). Check out past polls.