Consider the consideration

Now and then i see considered nodes (or consider them myself).

Last time i saw a Unconsidered (...): Enough keep votes (keep: 7 edit: 15 delete: 1)

Now thats twice as mutch wanting to edit as keep (the delete considered as nonsense). But it makes me wonder, what are the considerations to unconsider a considereded node, and why is this particular one unconsidered while there are 15 edit votes to 7 keeps?

"We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." - Larry Wall.

Comment on Consider the consideration Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Consider the consideration by ysth (Canon) on Jun 09, 2005 at 04:58 UTC
I like to see a 4 to 1 ratio before editing. However, some things are no brainers, and are actionable even without a consideration, while other things are beyond what the janitors should take upon themselves to do, even with a unanimous vote for editing.	[reply]
Re^2: Consider the consideration by jbrugger (Parson) on Jun 09, 2005 at 09:58 UTC
So as i understand, it's up to the janitor who is janitoring the node at the moment, or are there common rules like the 4 to 1 ratio? "We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise." - Larry Wall.	[reply]
Re^3: Consider the consideration by theorbtwo (Prior) on Jun 09, 2005 at 10:50 UTC
It's up to the janitor, but we generally like to see an overwhelming majority to mess with what the poster wrote. (The exception is with considerations where reaping is the action indicated. Reaping can only be performed by the NodeReaper, who has a very specific criteria (IIRC, no more then 2 keeps, and at least 5 reaps, but that's off the top of my head, and may change anyway). If it doesn't get to those numbers, it can still be performed directly by a god.) Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).	[reply]
Re^4: Consider the consideration by ysth (Canon) on Jun 09, 2005 at 17:38 UTC
Re: Consider the consideration (history) by tye (Sage) on Jun 09, 2005 at 16:39 UTC
Experience has shown that a lot of "go with the flow" votes appear to get cast on most considerations because even a fairly small minority of "keep" votes usually means that making the requested change will result in grumbling and subsequent sampling will likely show support for undoing the change. It appears to take more will to vote against a consideration than for it, so "keep" votes get more weight than other votes. There may also be some bias in the samples of who votes on considerations and who participates in forming site policy. But site policy is, of course, biased towards those who most participate in forming site policy. I consider this a good thing since I trust the judgement of those who actively participate in site policy creation and enforcement over a general poll of active members. - tye	[reply]
Re^2: Consider the consideration (history) by polettix (Vicar) on Jun 09, 2005 at 17:06 UTC
I do agree with your considerations (eh, considerations :). I would also notice that there is no place to justify one's position regarding the "keep" side, while a "edit"/"delete" decision normally supports the consideration that all can read. While I'm not surely asking to add the possibility to explain the reasons to "keep", I find it quite correct that these unlistened reasons are granted a greater weight. Flavio (perl -e 'print(scalar(reverse("\nti.xittelop\@oivalf")))') Don't fool yourself.	[reply]