(tye)Re: 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes

When this came up before, the consensus was pretty strong that "Thank you" notes should not be reaped. Now we did have one recent episode of someone posting a "thank you" for each individual reply. But not even that warrants reaping.

I like your terminology: Reaping is for nodes that are blatantly inappropriate or duplicates (and "someone else gave the same (or better) answer" doesn't count!). I suspect Nodes to consider will be changing because this hasn't been sinking in despite it being repeated quite a bit. ):

I don't even visit Nodes to consider much anymore as most of what ends up there is a waste of time and I got tired of voting "keep" on everything.

I'm for having an indoctrination be required as part of the process for enabling the moderation nodelet (as well as other changes that have been discussed when this came up before).

- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Comment on (tye)Re: 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(boo) (tye)Re: 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes by boo_radley (Parson) on Mar 29, 2001 at 21:25 UTC
I'd like to suggest that each person can only consider n times a day. Any ideas for n? Additionally, nodes should not be considered unless there's a reason. When a node is submitted, the user id submitting should be prepended to the reason as well.	[reply]
(kudra: limiting considerations defeats purpose) Re: (boo) 'Nodes to Consider' vs. Voting: On deleting 'Thank You' nodes by kudra (Vicar) on Mar 30, 2001 at 13:07 UTC
I am worried that restrictions like this will interfere with what I see as the point of consideration--stopping posts which really shouldn't be on the site (trolls, personal insults and exact duplicats). Just a couple of weeks ago there was a troll who was posting the same stuff (just cut and pasted monastery content which filled the screen without purpose). I considered about 15 posts by this person in a matter of minutes; other people considered the rest of them (there were at least 20 if I remember correctly--I used almost all my daily votes -- them). There were only about 4 people who could consider nodes on at the time. I don't think the problem is the opportunity to consider any number of nodes, but the choices some people make--choices which will still be made regardless of the number of considerations available. I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider some restrictions. I see it as only a matter of time before a troll gets high enough to consider and fills up considered nodes by considering everything. And of course there is the current problem of people using it to mark things they personally dislike.	[reply]