Yeah, but janitors assume considerably more liberty when it comes to titles. Did you see this part: "Janitors are particularly interested in the quality of titles, because bad titles can seriously impede site navigation." (For more detail, see What do Janitors do? and Janitors' Guidelines.)

So, wrt titles, I think you can consider smaller stuff than you would with the rest of a post.

Several points:

• Think of all the race conditions if multiple considerations were allowed. Three people might consider for reaping, but the node is only going to get reaped if any one of those considerations meets the criteria. And what if I feel strongly that it should be kept? I guess I'll have to vote 'keep' for each consideration, and hope that someone else does too.

• Think of two considerations addressing the same thing, both with the same vote outcomes, but with different recommendations.

I think it's just going to make the consideration system even more vague and difficult to act upon if we allowed multiple simultaneous considerations on a single node.

Besides, when a janitor cleans up code tags, (s)he's probably going to fix that broken paragraph tag at the same time even though that wasn't included in the initial consideration.

Several points:

• Think of all the race conditions if multiple considerations were allowed. Three people might consider for reaping, [...]
• Think of two considerations addressing the same thing, both with the same vote outcomes, but with different recommendations.

Well, I had considered those risks, but as I wrote, I think that one should see the previous considerations and only add another one in those rare cases in which the previous one missed something. It's all up to people's well behaviour, and all in all I'm positive about people, although not about all people. Overall, it seems to me that both extremes are not completely satisfactory, but of course the current system has the big advantage that it has been working fundamentally fine up to now, so I see there's no point in barking any more, and I won't.

Obviously only one poll can run, practically. But if notes could be added that would be grand..

I think I've seen nodes that have been considered for several different reasons at different times -- it seems all that is needed to solve this 'problem' is a little patience. If a node is considered for reason A, and you think it should be considered for reason B, just wait until A is resolved and reconsider it for B (assuming the [id://janitors] don't detect the additional problem and resolve it on the fly). It has been surprising to me to find that there are significant differences in opinion regarding consideration -- not everyone thinks the same way, and I would tend to resist any short-circuiting of the consideration process.

It has been surprising to me to find that there are significant differences in opinion regarding consideration -- not everyone thinks the same way, and I would tend to resist any short-circuiting of the consideration process.

Actually, I second that, and I was not thinking in my meditation of the short-circuiting aspect of the thing. Now that I do, I'm feeling even more half-hearted about it than when I wrote it. Still occasionally I feel the lack for a discussion/talk node of other nodes, in the same fashion as some wikis have talk pages about other pages, but then that's more connaturated to the very philosophy of wikis themselves. Also, patience is fine and all, but one thing is to want to contribute to The Monastery by considering a node, another thing is to have to remember to come back to that node after one consideration in course has been closed. Perhaps it should be permitted to consider a node also when one consideration is already open, to the effect of creating a queue of considerations for that node, which however should happen rarely enough. Of course, were this to happen, it should be left to the consciousness of the users: for example it shouldn't be a means to start arguments in the vein of "no, retitle it like thus" and so on. It should be a feature to be used to track only truely different issues with the same node...

Very tempting to consider the OP for spelling: "the same vein and phylosophyphilosophy as everything". :-)

Very tempting to consider the OP for spelling: "the same vein and phylosophyphilosophy as everything". :-)

Yes, but that was in the title! :-)

And, seriously, it's not as much a spelling error as a missing question mark, which makes for wrong grammar. It's a hateful use I see becoming more and more widespread amongst (some) young people...