So, I've been here for a while and I'm used to the site's quirks. I like quirks. 'Stumbit' is cute.
But I'm not crazy about the choices for [id://28877|Nodes to Consider]; Right now they are
() keep () edit () reap () nadaand after a while I've learned that if we're not being asked to delete (reap) something, we're being asked to approve an edit (add code tags, fix title, and so forth) or move a node. It would be a little less confusing, in particular for a node move (which requires a yes/no answer), if the choices were something like this:
() keep/no () edit/yes () reap () nadaeither explicitly (as above) or implicitly (perhaps by updating the [id://92977|documentation]). It just goes against the grain (briefly) when I have to approve a node move by clicking on 'edit'.
Alex / [talexb] / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
I would also like to suggest that the consider nodelet does something like
()-keep/no ()-edit/yes ()-reap ()-nadatoo, as sometimes its a little confusing when it wraps.
_______________________________________________________
Remember that amateurs built Noah's Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
- .. as sometimes its a little confusing when it wraps.
Really? Do you have a very narrow screen? I don't think I've ever run into that particular problem.
Alex / talexb / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
I almost never use the full screen width for my browser so I frequently see nodelet lines split in an odd fashion. Non-breaking spaces would be good in those places just to accomodate people who do it differently - after all, that's part of what Perl is about isn't it?
DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
To me this seems more confusing than the old options, especially if you consider (heh) a consideration of "Delete because of xxxx". How many people will then click on "edit/yes" when they actually mean "reap"?
A computer is a state machine. Threads are for people who can't program state machines. -- Alan Cox
I was trying to leave 'yes' and 'no' as options, but perhaps the choices need to be
() keep/don't move () edit/move () reap () nada
Alex / [talexb] / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
I'd like it to be simpler yet... Like
()yes ()no ()nullIf the consideration is to delete the node, then "yes" would mean "reap". Reap votes on nodes that haven't been considered for deletion are, I think, generally unnecessary.
P.S. I like "stumbit" too, but "nada" irks me.
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
Unfortunately, there are times when the consideration asks for, or allows for, both edit and reap as alternatives. Prime example: off-topic nodes.
So, let's just get rid of ambiguous considerations too. I really don't think off-topic nodes should be reaped in the vast majority of cases. Reaping is for trolls. OT posts should simply never be approved. (Though, marking them 'OT' might be reasonable as well.)
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
No. Keep the options as they are now.
I think keep is exactly the right word for not moving a node. Edit is indeed not a very good description for moving, but I don't like the words "yes" and "no". "Edit/move" would be sort of acceptable, but "yes" and "no" would IMO make improper considerations more frequent. It could make the impression that consideration is not a moderation tool but a general way to decide something about the post. (Especially because the nodelet title is "Approval Nodelet" instead of the more approperiate "Moderation Nodelet".) Yes, I know the documentated policy is against such misusage, but that's not enough.
Also you don't usually consider a node for moving: you either move it or consider for unapproving so that it can be moved.
A three-letter word that I think would work is "fix". I'd also go for "salvage".
Caution: Contents may have been coded under pressure.
Since this thread is my fault, I'd like to state that updating the documentation would be fine -- the existing radio button setup just goes against the grain of my brain, and I thought I'd mention it. Perhas the documentation could be update to say something like, "In the case where a node move is suggested, the 'edit' choice agrees with that suggestion, and the 'keep' choice disagrees.
And mix and match as appropriate (for other considerations).
Alex / [talexb / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
In the case of a consideration requesting that a node be moved between sections, an "edit" vote expesses support for editting the location of the node.
- tye
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh .. thank you. My brain finally understands. "Edit" can also be about location, and not just content. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Alex / talexb / Toronto
"Groklaw is the open-source mentality applied to legal research" ~ Linus Torvalds
Think 'edit' in terms of 'alter' or 'modify' or 'change'.
$world=~s/war/peace/g
I'd suggest taking edit literally, but not in the meaning it's used in computer programs, but rather meaning to prepare for printing, like what editors of a journal do to make it more readable. This can involve moving the article to somewhere else in the journal.
Maybe I'm just... cognitively challenged, but I think it is very possible that there are others who have the same problem. In which case, the current wording is lowering the level of participation. (...then again, perhaps it is just keeping us idiots out...)
I would definitely prefer something like
() keep () change () reap () abstain(I'm not crazy about "nada" either.)
An alternative is to change "keep" to "leave" to more strongly imply "leave it unaltered". Moving something seems to me to be near enough editing so I haven't a problem with that.
DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel
() Publish As Is () Publish After Editing/Moving () Reap () Abstain
-- Argel
Thats misworded. The node is already published. The question you are answering is what action should the janitors take on this node?
If there should be any changes, Id vote for changing keep to leave, and maybe also for changing edit to fix, but I dont know that the labels really need changing.
Makeshifts last the longest.
If I vote 'leave', when can I come back? Or does it make the node leave? Would 'fix'ing a node prevent it from moving between sections or prevent it from reproducing?
I much prefer 'keep' over 'leave'. Even though it isn't perfect, I find it easy to read 'keep it there' or 'keep it as-is'. Hey, perhaps 'as-is' would be a good replacement? Or is that more difficult for some non-native speakers?
I also much prefer 'edit' over 'fix' but would support going to 'modify'.
'abstain' would be fine with me as well.
- tye
Abstain over nada would be excellent it always bugged me that nada seems to imply a vote for doing nothing, rather than no vote at all.
Modify sounds like a clear improvement over edit and fix, as well.
I dont like as is much because its not a verb. My quibble with keep is linguistic hair-splitting: keeping a node implies an action, whereas the meaning of the vote is for the janitors to take none. Leave alone would be the exact expression, but is a bit long. But I follow the point that shortening it makes it too imprecise.
Hey, for leave alone, the thesaurus lists let be; does that seem palatable?
Makeshifts last the longest.