Update: this is incorrect, there is a policy about this matter, but I managed to remember it 180° backwards

Just a quick note to bring up a finer point about considering duplicates. In the current state of affairs, the site deals poorly with the following sequence of events:

  1. user previews a node, patiently checking for errors;
  2. user submits node;
  3. user suddenly realises that they made a really stupid mistake;
  4. user presses "Back" (or equivalent) in the browser;
  5. and user makes change, and presses submit.

Bingo! we have a duplicate node. In this case, the correct course of action is to consider the earlier node(s), not the later node(s), for deletion. 99.999% of the time this is the right thing to do, the reason being that by the time this has happened, the higher-numbered node is more up to date than the lower-numbered.

There have been a couple of instances of this happening in the past weeks, which I why I bring the topic up.

One other point, in case people aren't aware of the algorithm: a node is automatically reaped if it has 5 delete votes, and no edit or keep votes. It also needs to have a negative reputation. There was a node that needed reaping the other day, that I downvoted and voted to delete. When the page came back, it had 6 delete votes, and a rep of -1.

Which means that it had gathered the necessary delete votes, but no-one had thought to downvote it to ensure it was reaped. So when you're considering to delete, toss a coin, and if it comes up heads, go and check Worst Nodes to see whether it has a negative rep. If it hasn't, downvote it before you consider it for deletion.

Here endeth the lesson for today.

Ok, let's look at this from a proposal angle.

The problem I see with the current policy is that people will add more information to the root node, probably making things clearer, albeit in an incorrect manner. I put forward the idea that the latter node is more "deserving" of collecting the replies.

What really needs to be done is to have a mechanism in place to stop duplicates from occurring in the first place, but I must admit that I don't have time to devote to the matter in any case.

In reply to Considering duplicates: reap the lowest ids, keep the highest by grinder

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.