I agree, especially since I've raised similar points pretty recently. :-)
Our first moderation tool is the vote. If you're out of votes, then see if it's a node that can be edited. If so, then privately /msg the poster and nicely suggest an Update. I think most people will happily cooperate once they're a) aware of the rules and b) approached nicely. If you get a rude response, then perhaps it's appropriate to consider. (Personally, I'm not so sure; I'd rather you waited until the next day and voted it down.)
Every online community has its quirks and unwritten rules, as does every newsgroup. We should be patient when newcomers accidentally cross ours. I don't think we can completely expect that newscomers will a) always read the FAQ's and b) fully appreciate the importance of the guidelines provided in those materials. (With regard to thank you's, BTW, there are certain communities where they're appreciated, even encouraged. There are times we'll need to "untrain" people of habits we dislike.)
And, while I'm on the subject...please take the time to enter a *clear* reason when you consider a node. There have been a lot of blank reasons and, frankly, I must be missing something, for I've rarely understood why those nodes were considered in the first place. Given that the ratio between Keep/Edit vs Delete votes is running ~50/50 (+/- 10%) on most of those, at least a few other monks agree.
In the same way we ask posters to provide enough information to work with, I believe it's best we do the same when we consider nodes. Please give a reason, so us lesser mortals can understand the thought behind your action.
--f
In reply to Re: Consider vs. Voting
by footpad
in thread 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes
by johannz
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |