Requesting a new tag for PM posts

We already have the <readmore> and <spoiler> tags to enhance the thread-reading experience for everyone at PM, from addicts to occasional visitors. I'd like ask whether we could add one more tag: <ignore>.

This would work just like the other two "special PM tags", by hiding (a portion of) a node's text content until the viewer clicks on a link, labeled "(...ignorable...)" or something to that effect, to see the whole node. I'm thinking this could be better than using <strike> when a monk wants to update his node by removing a large section that was later found to be "off the mark" in some way.

Given such a tag (and a "div" class to go with it), I would also propose another enhancement, though this might require some alteration to the database that holds the nodes and their attributes, as well as some additions to the code that renders nodes in a thread display. (It might also affect how the Newest Nodes and/or Recent Threads displays work, but probably not.)

The idea would be that a monk with special permissions (presumably NodeReaper) would have the ability to designate certain posts as "ignorable". Node ownership and content would not be changed at all, but the standard thread display logic would show such nodes with just the heading (title, author, date), and the "(...ignorable...)" link, rather than showing the node text.

The node owner could still update the node content, but would not be able to change the "ignorable" attribute once it has been set by "The Final Authority". (Obviously, the gods could undo the setting at will, given justifiable cause.)

Naturally, such action (designating a node as "ignorable") would only be taken upon due consideration by other monks having a rank of at least "Friar". Let's say four consideration votes to "ignore" a node, together with a net XP voting score of -8, would suffice to allow setting the "ignorable" attribute on a node (though in effect, final discretion rests with janitors, gods and the Hooded One). This kind of consideration would be a form of "editing" the node, so no change would be needed in the "consideration nodelet", just the adoption of a new convention for edit requests.

In terms of handling posts that detract from the overall quality of the site, this provides a sort of "middle ground" between reaping and just leaving warts on full display.

Reaping should only apply to specific, well-defined cases, and I admire the monks who have shown the restraint needed to maintain rigorous standards of conduct for applying this tool. But I think there is a need for some less drastic measure that will make it easier for the sincere users to read PM threads without the annoyance and distractions that are thrown at us by the immature or maladjusted.

I think flagging nodes as "ignorable" can provide that service while preserving the things we value most:

freedom of speech: The node owner is not barred from updating the affected node or posting additional nodes; the node content is still available to anyone who thinks it might be interesting; and folks are still free to post replies to it. (Replies to ignorable nodes are equally open to the same consideration when appropriate, which speaks to the next point.)
fairness: Viewers looking for useful information will encounter a better signal-to-noise ratio with less effort spent to avoid the noise. Meanwhile, those who post for the sake of annoyance will encounter neither the affront of full erasure nor the satisfaction of watching others respond with annoyance; instead, a small measure of annoyance -- the extra click needed to see their "work" -- will be reflected back to them, and maybe this will be, more often than not, a disincentive to continue trying to annoy.
flexibility: The <ignore> tag can be used to good effect by anyone when updating one's own node.

I won't try to speculate on what sorts of response this strategy might elicit from trolls, but I don't think it'll bring anything worse than the responses we are eliciting now, and it might yield some overall net benefit. If nothing else, the rest of us will be less inclined to waste our votes feeding their appetite for negative XP.

There might be some worries about the potential load placed on the janitors as these extra edit requests come in, but the nature of the "edit" would be a lot less work than, say, adding code tags -- just update a field in a table row for the given node. Does this seem worth a try?

Comment on Requesting a new tag for PM posts Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by kyle (Abbot) on Oct 08, 2007 at 03:51 UTC
I'm thinking about how this is different from reaping. The differences I see between reaped and ignored are: The original author continues to own the ignored node. The original author can continue to update the ignored node. It would be easier to get ignored than reaped. That is, the standards for that would be not as tight. I'm not sure it's worth it for a relatively small change. The Monastery is normally so very intelligent and respectful that I find it to be quite a shock when some knucklehead invades it and pollutes it. It can be hard to remember that fools have come before and departed and that the fool before me will likely soon be the fool behind me. I'd be happy to have the ignorable flag, but only if creating it doesn't detract from time that might be spent on more important features. Deterring the occasional cretin doesn't seem worth much to me. They're already pretty deterred.	[reply]
Re^2: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by graff (Chancellor) on Oct 08, 2007 at 04:29 UTC
... only if creating it doesn't detract from time that might be spent on more important features. Deterring the occasional cretin doesn't seem worth much to me. To the extent that good information is still good months or years from now (and to the extent that Super Search has proven well worth the effort to set it up), I think there's more at issue than just the short-term goal of coping with jerks while they are in our face. Having an easier, less drastic means for skipping the noise would yield a lasting benefit. And it's not just a question of nodes posted by trolls; it's also the responses they get, whether well-intentioned and constructive or spiteful and vindictive, that have nothing to do with Perl or the given thread topic. I think the `<ignore>` tag by itself (without the special NodeReaper protocol) would be handy in any case, but I can't hazard a guess as to the effort required to set it up, and maybe that's not so much better than `<strike>` tags as to be worthwhile. Just an idea...	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by CountZero (Bishop) on Oct 08, 2007 at 18:47 UTC
++ for the effort of thinking about what is good for our Monastery, but I cannot agree with your proposal. Freedom of speech is such a precious right that it does not support any censorship except in the most blatant cases. Only 4 Monks of above Friar level and a score of -8 to hide the content of a node, is IMHO far too low a quorum. At least one must take into account the keep votes as well and as a matter of principle I will always consider a node to be kept in such circumstances. You understand that your arguments are exactly the same as those used by people favouring other forms of (political) censorship? Freedom of speech: You are allowed to express any opinion you wish, but we will make it difficult for others to access it. Fairness: It will be much better for all of us not to be bothered by your opinions, and neither will you be ridiculed for expressing an opinion which we do not look favourably upon. So censorship is a win-win for all of us! Using the `<ignore>` tag for your own nodes is different of course, but I'm not sure if we really need it. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by graff (Chancellor) on Oct 08, 2007 at 22:51 UTC
I'm not advocating "censorship" of opinions (even if making people click on a link to see text could be construed as "censorship"). I'm expressing a sense of trust, based on years of observed evidence, that the PerlMonks community can use this sort of technique effectively and responsibly, in order to deal in a sensible way with nodes that do not express opinions, do not ask pertinent questions, do not offer help or any other sort of cooperative or meaningful communication. What value do we preserve by making every site visitor read that kind of stuff? What core principle of community spirit does that evoke for anybody? I appreciate your concerns, and I'm glad you presented them. When it comes to any sincere attempt to communicate, I agree with you completely. But my proposal is aimed at limiting the impact of those whose obvious intent is to interfere with communication. I'll admit that I proposed a fairly low threshold for establishing "consensus" for ignoring a given node, and as the population of active monks continues to increase, it makes sense to raise that threshold.	[reply]
Re^3: Requesting a new tag for PM posts (faith) by tye (Sage) on Oct 08, 2007 at 23:46 UTC
IMHO, the margin for nodes that some monks will think should qualify for such treatment would be so wide as to cause a great deal of thrash with this treatment being applied way too much followed by much complaining and arguing. The criterion "does not contribute to communication meaningfully" is too wide and vague. We have a continuing problem with over-reaping already. The proposed level of "punishment" is not low enough to avoid the strife when the tool is inevitably over-applied. You'd be better off proposing a slashdotian reputation threshold such that negative-rep nodes below a viewer's selected threshold would be hidden. - tye	[reply]
Re^4: Requesting a new tag for PM posts (faith) by graff (Chancellor) on Oct 09, 2007 at 04:24 UTC
Re: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by Errto (Vicar) on Oct 08, 2007 at 20:28 UTC
Strikethrough is incredibly difficult to read. If authors need or want to remove part of their text from the "main" body of the node without deleting it, I'm in favor of offering a better tool than strikethrough for that. Readmore works fine, but conveys the wrong message to the casual reader.	[reply]
Re^2: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by Argel (Prior) on Oct 10, 2007 at 20:56 UTC
But the author could put a blurb just before the readmore tag explaining why it is beign used such as soemthing like "This portion no longer relevant:".	[reply]
Re^3: Requesting a new tag for PM posts ('other' readmores) by tye (Sage) on Oct 10, 2007 at 21:46 UTC
Perl Monks Approved HTML tags shows that <readmore title="Redacted"> is supported. Read more... Example (101 Bytes) <spoiler> doesn't support this, but that is probably good that it doesn't (to discourage the increasing mis-use of <spoiler> for things other than spoilers). - tye	[reply]
Re: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by apl (Monsignor) on Oct 10, 2007 at 13:41 UTC
I've seen shmem post a wonderful note providing links on how to frame a question, where the FAQs are, etc. to new arrivals. If we're talking about new tags, I'd like to see <hello>, which would recapitulate all this. 8-)	[reply]
Re^2: Requesting a new tag for PM posts by CountZero (Bishop) on Oct 10, 2007 at 16:31 UTC
Great idea! Even better: have the system post this node just before the edit box when someone is writing a comment and do so for their first x number of posts or until they reach a certain level. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James	[reply]