in reply to RFC: Better Best Answers Gets Real

Thanks for this jdporter,

> Figure out how we'll increase the ranks of QandAEditors. Maybe import all current active Janitors and Pedagogues?

Well QandAEditors will result a bit misnamed group after your work is complete. Maybe another new group is a cleaner solution. Starrers or Illuminators or, being all nuns and monks Limners?.

Even importing janitors and pedagogues and summing up all previous QandAEditors the number of active monks is under the dozen.

In recent years some very good monk joined the monastery and they are perfect candidates for a Limners or whatever new group. I'd make a bit of recruitment among them (the same is true for the pmdev group, but this is another story..).

Also iirc QandAEditors had the power to ad/edit/delete content and i do not think this power is related to starred nodes.

> Yes, we'd certainly need the capability to remove the star ... will be a rare enough need that the gods can execute a request manually.

gods are so rare nowadays: I'd not charge them of other tasks. If Limners can star and unstar a node this will be perfect.

Here we have the right to modify a node at any moment, even after years. I think this is a good feature. Maybe starred nodes stay read only until they have a star on it? Dunno if it is worth: just a suggestion.

Thanks again!

L*

There are no rules, there are no thumbs..
Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: Better Best Answers Gets Real
by jdporter (Paladin) on May 17, 2019 at 16:13 UTC
    Maybe another new group is a cleaner solution

    Good point. Editors became Janitors with even less pretext...

    QandAEditors had the power to ad/edit/delete content and i do not think this power is related to starred nodes.
    Here we have the right to modify a node at any moment, even after years. I think this is a good feature.

    It's something to think about. At the very least, we should be able to tell a poster, "Hey, if you fix your writeup like so, we'll give it a gold star."

    Maybe starred nodes stay read only until they have a star on it?

    I'm concerned about the potential for abuse. QandAEditors have a much freer hand to improve CatQ's and CatA's for the good of the section. (Heck, the original poster doesn't even retain ownership of the post!) I don't think we want to give anyone that kind of license in the SoPW section, regardless of justification.

    gods are so rare nowadays: I'd not charge them of other tasks.

    Let's not presume we'll have a problem. We can address the problem if/when it arises.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]
Re^2: RFC: Better Best Answers Gets Real
by roboticus (Chancellor) on May 17, 2019 at 15:57 UTC

    Discipulus / L*:

    You missed a perfect naming opportunity there ... they should be called "The Illuminati". ;^D

    ...roboticus

    When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

[reply]

      well, no... "Illuminati" means "illiminated (ones/things)". It's the writeups which are being illuminated. The people doing it would be illuminatores.

      I believe the term for those who copied manuscripts, often embellishing with illuminations, was scriba librarius, usually abbreviated as simply librarius. The plural would be librariis, apparently. (but IANALS)

      Update: If instead we choose to take the word "Illuminati" as being Italian rather than Latin, then illuminators would be Illuminatori. Which maybe swings better in context.

[reply]

      Fnord.

      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.
      The cake is a lie.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion