in reply to Re^5: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I don't see any difference in the levels of "subjectivity" between the two methods of indicating that your post is OT, nor between the two ways a reader can know that a post is OT. All the predicates are binary and unambiguous. (And also -- I think it needs to be stressed -- equally unreliable as gauges of actual off-topic-ness.)

But it is important to consider that the two solutions differ in respect of how the decision made by the OP can be overridden:

  1. Using "[OT]" in the titles (the situation today), only janitors can effect the change. And they have to do it on every node in a thread, either automatically (in bulk), or, if they prefer to review each note in the thread, then manually -- and perhaps quite painstakingly. Essentially, every note in every thread, because it has its own title field, can have its own independent indicator of its OT-ness. This level of granularity may be a two-edged sword. ;-)
  2. With a separate OT section, all the moderators -- a significantly larger cadre of users -- have the power to change the OT indicator, simply by moving the root post from one section to another. And in contrast, this method only categorizes the root node; the rest of the thread is carried along with it.

I'll say again that I don't think the latter is better, in the long run, because it represents a perpetuation and further ingraining of a system I feel is already outmoded and inadequate. I think we need a full-blown, modern keyword tagging system.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re^6: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jun 09, 2015 at 17:34 UTC

    :P Yes, #2. The section would mean: anything goes. So, no, it’s not equally subjective. Mods don’t interfere except in legally relevant matters. Today, off topic is only tolerated if it’s tangentental to Perl or posted by a respected/loved monk and even then they are often considered “reap.” This is subjective; 5 monks, 5 different valid opinions. A brand new monk posting about a chili cooking contest in Calcutta would be completely acceptable in “Off Topic.” This is objective. It’s irrelevant what it is or who posted it; it’s allowed.

    Again, I don’t think it’s likely a good idea and I’m not arguing for it. I just see that right now OT is subjective and hard to dodge as part of the node flow if desired and as such… it’s easy to understand why some monks find it broken or not good enough. I know cures are worse than diseases more often than is part of normal human intuition.

    Personally, tagging and such is wonderful but I think that ship has sailed for PerlMonks. Either a complete rewrite in a public repo with modern tools, taking cultural lessons from here and UI lessons from SO, or let the dog sleep.

    Update: I have volunteered for the rewrite effort before and I do so again. I’m amazed and thankful that other monks have taken care of the current code and the site has worked so well for so long.

[reply]

      What modern tools do you have in mind? Some sort of AI assistant?

[reply]

        JARVIS will do. HAL has had some troubling bug reports.

[reply]
      The section would mean: anything goes.

      So this seems (to me) to be indicative of a conflation of What limits we'll place on tolerable OT and How we separate/indicate OT. But they are not necessarily tied!

      I think what I'm really hearing advocates say -- though for some reason they don't want to come right out and say it in just so many words -- is: We want to remove all limits on the topics on which people can post, and we believe that having a separate OT section will make this an easier change to swallow.

      The second part seems valid to me, even if still a rather crappier solution than a full-blown modern keyword tagging system. But since I wholly disagree with the first part, which is apparently the motivator for the second part, I see no need to argue the second part.

      JMHO.

      Mods don’t interfere except in legally relevant matters.

      Umm.... What?

      But you've made me go and double-check myself, and I find that I forgot something important about moderation: Once a post has been "approved into its section", it requires the intervention of a janitor to move it again. So really, except for unapproved posts, janitors wield the all power with respect to moving a post between sections. So the differences I cited two posts up, about how re-designating a post as on/off-topic, are actually much less than I said.

      off topic is only tolerated if it's tangential to Perl ... and even then they are often considered [for] "reap." This is subjective

      Ok. So what I've been hearing is that (some) people are unhappy with the vagueness of the rules which set the limits on what's considered on topic. That is an absolutely fair complaint! I don't think it follows, though, that the only (or even best) solution is to remove limitations altogether. Maybe we just need to firm up the rules.

      OT is subjective and hard to dodge as part of the node flow

      Two thoughts:

      1. That's one of the pressures that keep the volume of OT posts low: fear of cluttering up our site with off-topic crap. I call it a win. :-)
      2. IMHO, users should be resilient enough to handle an occasional OT post in the stream. And if we had a little better keyword tagging, users could actually hide OT posts in the streams.

      I think that ship has sailed for PerlMonks

      I'm not sure; but what's nice is that, because the winds blow so slowly here, that ship is still only about a half a league out in the bay. We can still bring it back in. Theoretically. :-)

      a complete rewrite in a public repo with modern tools, taking cultural lessons from here and UI lessons from SO

      I totally agree. I'd love to see someone with the chops (and the tuits) take this on.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]

        Re: keywords versus section. The former would, with the best will in the world, take months or years; and on past performance, might never happen. The latter could be here tomorrow.

        If the need (or just desire) is acknowledged, why not do the latter until the former is available?

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion