If you can find a node that won't get any votes, then just vote it down and "consider" it with a reason of "delete, duplicate" and it will be gone in 20 minutes, probably without a single person bothering to check whether it was really a duplicate or not.
My point? A lot of monks are trying to be helpful but taking the time to actually consider a node is quite a bit of work given the number of nodes submitted for consideration each day.
Even vroom felt that a 3:1 majority wasn't enough to warrant the deletion of a node. And he has even restored at least one node that got reaped for the reason you advocate above.
Reaping isn't going to amount to even a drop in the bucket when it comes to saving disk space. The real value in eliminating "useless" content is to make it easier to find the best content. But for that to be at all successful we would have to reap 70% of the content. Do you really want to do that??
I advocate enhancing Super Search so that it at least sorts results by reputation.
I also encourage those trying to turn PerlMonks into some kind of "clean knowledgebase" by deleting things to instead work on selecting a dynamic subset that can be used as that.
I don't want PerlMonks to be a "knowledgebase". It is much more than that. It is an interesting and fun community with a rich history. Why throw that away?
- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")In reply to (tye)Re2: 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes
by tye
in thread 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes
by johannz
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |