Furthermore would I personally include the necessary level, otherwise new questions are likely to pop up again. *

I would have patched it myself, but given that there are two places to be patched i would have needed to insert two config variables for thresholds (downvotes and level) to manage it from a central point, and I don't know how to do this.

Update

There is some confusing code in at least 3 nodes,¹ sometimes a hardcoded level -9 is used otherwise a system wide HTMLVARS² crap_threshold = -4 . Furthermore does Annomonk have two system wide identifiers like guest- and default-user.

I'd volunteer to clean this up with 3-4 patches by adding crap_min_xp and refactoring the code to be consistent.

I'd suggest only need one clause ((guest_user or crap_min_xp) and level< crap_threshold)

footnotes

°) shownote and std_node_display

*) ok I realize now that you just skipped the login advice. Another way to solve it. 👍🏻 :)

¹) + handle_threaded_nodes

²) system settings

IIRC two places need to be patched - shownote and std_node_display

No; std_node_display already had the distinction. In fact, that's where I got the text for the patch for shownote.

sometimes a hardcoded level -9 is used otherwise a system wide HTMLVARS² crap_threshold = -4

Right. The idea is:

1. If it's merely bad (<-4), don't show it to not-logged-in users, but logged-in users can see it.
2. But if it's very bad (<-9), don't show it to logged-in users below a certain level (<=3).
Unfortunately some of these values are hard-coded.

We could add a system variable like $HTMLVARS{supercrap_threshold} if you want. I hesitate to add any htmlcode for this.

does Annomonk have two system wide identifiers like guest- and default-user

Yes. They are interchangeable and both refer to AnonymousMonk.

Up to you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Personally I'd simplify the system. Less code easier rules, central config.

One unified crap_threshold , one crap_min_user_level and the same clause everywhere and the same message °.

Minimal boilerplate, hence no htmlcode needed.

The idea is once users are passed crap_min_user_level they are mature enough to handle "crappy" nodes.

I suppose handle_threaded_nodes has to be patched too, to ensure that logged in users only see RAT entries of nodes they can access.

Edit

°) You might link the message to a doclet with an explanation mirroring the current settings.

But that's an extra, and I'm not sure it's worth it.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
see Wikisyntax for the Monastery}