in reply to Consideration overhaul?

I just wanted to document here one point discussed recently in the CB.

The idea of a drop-down menu of consideration reasons has been discussed. My additional refinement would be to have individual "reasons" removed from the drop-down list after a node has been previously considered for that reason.

That way, for example, a node won't get considered for "promotion to tutorials" several times, each time ending in a "keep" majority.

Think of it a little like the US Legal system.... where, while there may be multiple appeals filed in the wake of a court decision, each appeal must argue a unique point. Once an appeal has been ruled upon, any future appeals must be in regards to other topics of discussion.

Coming back to the Monastery, that would mean that a node couldn't be considered twice for topic change, but it could be considered once for topic change, and later on, considered again for the different purpose of the addition of code tags.


Dave

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Consideration overhaul? (unlimited jeopardy)
by tye (Sage) on Mar 17, 2004 at 17:20 UTC

    I don't think this should ever be done. A better way to address the presumed problem (and something that would be useful for many other reasons) is to make available the consideration history of a node including when it was considered, for what, how the vote turned out, when and why it was unconsidered (which will require asking for a reason when janitors unconsider a node), etc. Perhaps considering a node that had previously been considered could display the consideration history and prompt "are you sure?". Fixing a title once doesn't mean that a much better title can't be suggested. Not being a duplicate once doesn't mean it can't become a duplicate. Or a poorly worded consideration might fail for the wrong reasons. Etc.

    - tye        

[reply]
      I totally agree. I have unconsidered on a few occasions and wish there had been a place where I could have said something like "This has already been considered for reap, as OT, and unconsidered. Please don't do it again!"

      It would also be nice if something similar could be done wrt approvals.

      jdporter
      The 6th Rule of Perl Club is -- There is no Rule #6.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion