in reply to Where is the boundary between 'in bounds' and 'out of bounds'?

Yes, I see the main problem with the consideration system is that it doesn't deal with "off topic" at all well. I've been requesting that people not consider nodes for "deletion" (really "reaping") as it doesn't really work very well.

Plus, the general feedback I get from a wide variety of monks that I most respect shows a consensus for a dramatic reduction in reaping of nodes. This feedback has gone into the site documentation regarding consideration, What is consideration? (which you can get to indirectly via the "help" link if you have access to the approval nodelet).

Today I see people considering nodes for reaping because they are replies to reaped nodes. I really don't see that as being even close to worth the collective effort involved. But I certainly understand the desire to do "something" rather than what I consider to be the best approach we have right now which is, well, mostly "nothing". That is, don't approve the node and don't reply to it (perhaps /msg the author, complain in the CB, or even downvote it).

I'll think I'll ease up complaining about too many (IMHO) requests for reaping nodes.

What I hope to do is add an option to the consideration system for "off topic" which would, instead of reaping the node, clearly mark it as being "off topic", actively discourage (but not disallow) replying to the node, and disallow (if enough monks with "consideration access" vote for the action) approval of the node for inclusion in any section or the front page. Also, a user setting would control whether or not you even "see" nodes that are deemed to be off topic (probably with a couple of levels between "see everything" and "no trace of off topic nodes" and perhaps even a threshhold for how much consensus is need for you to not see it).

Back to the question you asked. Many, perhaps most, of the nodes that I've seen considered for reasons like "no perl content" or "no effort, no value" have been nodes that I have seen as being at least "Perl related" and as having some value. And, in fact, most of them did not get a strong majority of "delete" votes vs. "keep" votes (though that is hard to draw much of a conclusion from) and so didn't get reaped.

It is easy to ask a question in such a way that a few people will not see any "Perl content" or any "effort"/"value". But I encourage those who don't see these things in a node to take a moment and realize that there are probably quite a few other members here who do see how the question relates to Perl and do see the hidden effort and value.

        - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")
  • Comment on (tye)Re: Where is the boundary between 'in bounds' and 'out of bounds'?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (tye)Re: Where is the boundary between 'in bounds' and 'out of bounds'?
by mandog (Curate) on May 09, 2002 at 01:32 UTC

    In regard to the effort to consider nodes, are you counting the benefit to the archives?

    It might not be worth the trouble to clean something up for the current set of readers, but the effort might be worth reducing the garbage future searchers have to rumage through.

    Also, nobody is forced to vote on consideration...



    email: mandog

      First, let me apologize to some that I fear will read the rest of this node with the wrong tone. This is one of those items that I can easily see someone reading and getting an impression that I'm angry and overly sarcastic. Well, sure, I am being sarcastic (I'm almost always a bit sarcastic), but some will probably read more sarcasm than I intended. The fact is that it is late, I'm tired. If I wait until I have more time in order to word this more carefully, well, it would likely never get posted at all. And tomorrow I may think that would have been a better choice. But I hope not. I wrote it with a smile in my heart and the "Thanks" was sincere. Really. No, it was. Okay, I'm off to bed. :)


      My standard response to that is, how much are you going to reap? 1%? 5%? So searching through 95 nodes is going be a lot nicer than searching through 100?

      And not deleting nodes about roof repairs somehow makes it harder to find nodes about CGI security? Sure, occasionally you'll find some overlap and save someone searching for "frame" from finding nodes about hanging art (sorry, I found no realistic examples handy, but I hope you see my point anyway). But mostly I don't think reaping off topic items will help searching much. So even if you reap 20% of the site content, the fact that off topic items often don't overlap with "on topic" items means you only cut the rummaging from 100 matches to maybe 90 matches. No, I don't think most people would even notice.

      Also, nobody is forced to vote on consideration...

      Heck, noone is forced to visit this site. So who cares? (: I don't really know what else to say to that "argument".

      Perl Monks isn't really a great archive for ad-hoc searching for fantastic answers to Perl questions. I don't see how it will ever be. Sure, there is quite a bit of good stuff here related to Perl. But the long-term benefit will come from distilling it a huge amount (throwing away 99.9%), not from reaping a bit here and there. And distilling the master copy would suck in my opinion. Distill bits out into Perl FAQs and tutorials, etc.

      Thanks for mentioning this. I'd nearly forgotten that I'd previously run into a lot of people who wanted to purge stuff of lesser quality for the good of the archive. Probably because I still don't see how that idea holds water.

      Yes, I think there is some stuff that is worthy of purging, and even more stuff that is worthy of deemphasizing (such that it is somewhat hidden, less likely to appear to the casual viewer). But I don't think any of that will have other than a trivial impact to how easy searching is in the future.

              - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")