[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] Is it a Perl News node? Maybe we could special case those to reappear in NN on update?
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] .. that sounds like a useful solution to me, anyway
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] anyone think of a reason why News nodes shouldnt do that?
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] It should also reappear on [perl news], as if it was a new node. That's harder, as node ids would need to be sorted out of order.
[Perlmonks ysth@PerlMonks] [castaway] inefficiency?
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] Though I could think of a section of "updated nodes" at the bottom of [perl news], once it drops off (they probably all will), would sound even better.
[Perlmonks ysth@PerlMonks] but news is low-enough volume it probably won't matter
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] ineffcient how? (cheapest solution, change the createtime, or something :)
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] thats my thought.. News is fairly low vol
[Perlmonks ysth@PerlMonks] the newest nodes ticker shouldn't do it by default but have the option to
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] Perhaps a special property assigned to by editors, enabling this feature
[Perlmonks ysth@PerlMonks] oh; changing the createtime is clever 
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] It's also cheating.
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] well, assuming the list goes by createtime (Ive looked recently, but I cant remember)
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] I dont think special-casing them would be all that terrible
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] It probably does. Either create time, or node id. (those should be in sync by default)
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] ha, I was right: order by createtime desc :)
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] Could be changed to 'lastupdatetime' assuming we have such.. actually that would probably solve a big reason people post new nodes..
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] But somehow I think that the shown create time should be the real one. You shouldn't fool the user into thinking this actually is a new node.
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] I think a "this is a significant update" checkbox would be welcome. People while editing can decide between just fixing a typo, or actually changing the content.
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] If the list of updated nodes becomes as big as the actual new nodes, i think it'd be missing its point...
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks too]
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] I also fear some people could abuse this feature to try keep a node of theirs in the attention...
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] people could abuse this site for lots of things, it hasnt happened though (much).. and any such will get some sort of punishment if it did happen
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] (we need to stay perl like, no shotguns .)
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] Like votes on a node be disabled for adding to their XP while its on that list of recently updated nodes.
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] I mean, no chance of gaining XP.
[Perlmonks Intrepid@PerlMonks] On this point I definitely support [castaway]'s assertion.
[Perlmonks castaway@PerlMonks] Id prefer no premptive strikes there until it because evident we need them
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] What? The "not shotguns" approach? Well, I agree... provided we keep a shotgun handy. Just in case.  :)
[Perlmonks bart@PerlMonks] ... Or at least, we know where to get one.
..