Answering Nodes and Approving them.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by davido (Cardinal) on May 17, 2005 at 16:04 UTC
It's just a bad habbit, that's all. ...or a sort of race condition, where the followup was posted, and you read it before the follwer-up had time to approve. But 90% of the time it's just that the followers-up haven't been as motivated to approve as they were to respond. We all do it, but we should all remember to approve. Dave	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by VSarkiss (Monsignor) on May 17, 2005 at 18:05 UTC
They should be approved. As good brother footpad reminded everyone many years ago, if you're going to take the time to reply, take the time to approve it. I posted a similar reminder not long after that. Though I don't write nearly as nicely. Update There's been a lot of discussion on approval and front-paging in the monastery in the past, so it took me a while to find the nodes I was looking for. Mr. Muskrat wrote a vey nice summary in Considering Front Paging a Node?. The replies from tye and footpad in that thread (Re^2: Considering Front Paging a Node? (what not) and Re: Considering Front Paging a Node? respectively) are also very informative. Do not rebuke them with harsh words ... but rather lead them gently - with URLs - so that they may learn wisdom.	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by cog (Parson) on May 17, 2005 at 16:03 UTC
I, for one, try to do only one of the following things regarding a post: Answer Approve Front-page This way, I share the responsibility for what I'm doing with at least one other person (possibly two).	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by jonadab (Parson) on May 17, 2005 at 18:54 UTC
Some monks have a policy of only approving nodes they're not answering, in order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. It's a bit of a silly thing, really, but there's the idea floating about that if you answer a node and then approve it, you're promoting your own response post with it. If you let someone else approve nodes that you've answered, it avoids that. I don't think there's any consensus that you necessarily have to do it this way. There are monks who routinely both answer and approve the same node, and nobody jumps on their case for it, as far as I am aware. "In adjectives, with the addition of inflectional endings, a changeable long vowel (Qamets or Tsere) in an open, propretonic syllable will reduce to Vocal Shewa. This type of change occurs when the open, pretonic syllable of the masculine singular adjective becomes propretonic with the addition of inflectional endings." — Pratico & Van Pelt, BBHG, p68	[reply]
Re^2: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by polettix (Vicar) on May 18, 2005 at 09:19 UTC
I feel like this when considering a node for front-paging, because this gives the post much wider audience and it seems to me like I'm trying to cheat. Nonetheless, the right part of my brain agrees with you in considering this a bit of a silly thing. I wonder how many Monks check if the approver, or the front-pager, did also answer the node - that would be a really silly thing IMHO. Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))') Don't fool yourself.	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by johnnywang (Priest) on May 17, 2005 at 17:23 UTC
I agree with davido. I don't see much reason for answering without approving, every answer is good for the community. We do forget sometimes, after all, approving doesn't get as much XP as answering, on the flip side, people can't down-vote your approval :-)	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by pboin (Deacon) on May 17, 2005 at 15:57 UTC
Good question. I think that most of the time that's just an indication that the reply would only be of interest to the OP, and not to 'the public'. I've never heard it discussed, but I've thought of it as (more-or-less) a three-tier system: Unapproved nodes, read by regulars Approved nodes, read by regulars & searchers Front-paged nodes, read by regulars, searchers and browsers At least that's how I've thought of it...	[reply]
Re: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by castaway (Parson) on May 18, 2005 at 06:03 UTC
Just to add to the list: If you answer a node, please also approve it. The only case where this may not be warranted, is where you are replying to confirm whether the question is really about perl or not. I have also wondered why people don't do both. C.	[reply]
Re^2: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 18, 2005 at 10:23 UTC
Maybe we should do approve on reply? If you reply and the node is unapproved it gets approved? Imo the times when people are replying and the node shouldnt be approved are so uncommon that the occasionally consideration to unapprove after wont be too much trouble? --- $world=~s/war/peace/g	[reply]
Re^3: Answering Nodes and Approving them. by bart (Canon) on May 18, 2005 at 10:38 UTC
Maybe we should do approve on reply? I like this idea. Perhaps a checkbox could be added "I do not want approve this post" (default to off) so people have to take an extra step to not approve a post they're replying to.	[reply]
Re^3: Answering Nodes and Approving them. (and front-paging) by tye (Sage) on May 18, 2005 at 15:16 UTC
I'd go for a checkbox for "approve" and/or for "front page", whichever hasn't been done yet. The "approve" one could default to being checked, though. - tye	[reply]