Re^2: Deferring a consideration decision

You make a very good point. On the other hand, if "held" (or "punted") nodes are marked as such, or placed in a separate area, or otherwise made clearly recognizable as such, then it serves as some form of "buyer beware" warning. Perhaps even the subtle lack of an "approved by" note at the right-hand side of the screen would provide some hint of warning.

If, on the other hand, you feel that putting a "hold" on a node doesn't have the desired effect, perhaps you could suggest a better idea if you have one. I'm not saying "come up with a better idea or shut up," by any means. I'm just curious as to whether you have a better suggestion for how to deal with a case like the cited example.

- apotheon
CopyWrite Chad Perrin

Comment on Re^2: Deferring a consideration decision

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Deferring a consideration decision by FoxtrotUniform (Prior) on Nov 17, 2004 at 08:41 UTC
On the other hand, if "held" (or "punted") nodes are marked as such, or placed in a separate area, or otherwise made clearly recognizable as such, then it serves as some form of "buyer beware" warning. Perhaps even the subtle lack of an "approved by" note at the right-hand side of the screen would provide some hint of warning. Depends. I'd barely notice such nodes, unless they were explicitly flagged in Recently Active Threads: I very rarely read sections by themselves, so I don't usually notice whether a node's approved or not. If, on the other hand, you feel that putting a "hold" on a node doesn't have the desired effect, perhaps you could suggest a better idea if you have one. I'm not saying "come up with a better idea or shut up," by any means. I'm just curious as to whether you have a better suggestion for how to deal with a case like the cited example. Good point. A "better" idea would be to call a "hold" a "red flag" -- we're not really preventing people from reading the node, we're just flagging it as "somehow harmful". I think that critical replies do that better than new node attributes or considers, but that's just me. Let me put it this way. If we're trying to restrict a node's distribution, let's think about who's going to be able to see it regardless, and who isn't; if we're trying to flag a node as "somehow harmful", let's think about how we should convey that message. I think that the current proposal is pessimal in both respects. If we're trying to limit distribution, make it such that only janitors can view unapproved nodes (or "held" nodes); if the latter, let's pick a different mechanic. `--` Yours in pedantry,`F o x t r o t U n i f o r m` "Anything you put in comments is not tested and easily goes out of date." -- tye	[reply]
Re^4: Deferring a consideration decision by apotheon (Deacon) on Nov 17, 2004 at 08:57 UTC
Hmm. You make good points. Another use of the "hold" (or whatever) concept is in simply creating a sort of stumbling-block in the way of someone approving it without noticing that there's something wrong. I glossed over that somewhat with my last post, though the benefit of a node lacking the "approved by" note was assumed to be based on this means of preventing uncareful approval. If those who might consider "holding" something would simply post a properly critical response, though, explaining what the problem is, that would probably better serve the PerlMonks community — as you point out. You've altered my perspective. Thanks. - apotheon CopyWrite Chad Perrin	[reply]