in reply to Re^4: A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. (Acolyte Level=3 needed)
in thread A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

I'm on the train and have trouble checking but IIRC two places need to be patched. °

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.

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

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

  • Comment on Re^5: A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. (Acolyte Level=3 needed)
  • Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. (Acolyte Level=3 needed)
by jdporter (Paladin) on Apr 23, 2026 at 14:34 UTC
    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.

[reply]
[d/l]
      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

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        not sure it's worth it.

        Good point. My feeling is that very little is worth it anymore.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion