OK, I have recently been given a pair of spectacles and a nice big fat stamp and asked to help clean up the sink. I have been quite busy this past week, and haven't actually gotten around to cleaning anything up yet, but I stopped by the sink again today to check things out and noticed that there are now more threads in there than there were when I first took a look (about a week ago). I know that the Mad Scis are working hard to get the sink under control, but it would appear that it is a losing battle (which, I imagine, is why you guys were desperate enough to call me in).
I spoke with TP about this briefly, and asked him what sort of threads he preserves and what sort of threads he deletes. He gave me his views on the matter, and mentioned that, while he preserves about thirty percent of the threads he views, he doesn't delete the remaining seventy percent. This makes sense, of course, since one man's trash is another man's treasure. If TP deleted every single thread he didn't preserve, we would basically get an archive skewed to his tastes. If everyone acted this way, we would get archives skewed to the tastes of whoever acted the quickest. No one wants this, and thus the reluctance to delete threads.
The fact of the matter, though, is that there are only two ways that threads leave the sink: either they get preserved and then archived (if I understand the process correctly), or they get deleted. Threads that no one touches just sit in the sink mildewing. It is my opinion (consider it an outsider opinion, as I still have very little experience dealing with the sink) that, while preserving is indeed very important and probably the primary responsibility of those wearing the latex gloves, taking out the trash is also very important. But how do we overcome the natural aversion to deleting threads?
I have heard that a single member of a firing squad was, at random, given a rifle with a blank instead of a live cartridge. That way, when they all fired at the doomed person, they could each tell themselves that they had the blank and thus cope with the reality that they regularly killed defenseless people. Is this true? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's just a justification invented by someone who has never killed before and doesn't want to admit that human beings are capable of such ruthlessness. But that's not really the point. The point is that a blank would indeed allow an escape from responsibility, whether justified or not.
What I would like to propose is actually a bit different from the blank idea, but it will allow us as individuals to escape the burden of responsibility for regularly killing defenseless threads, and will thus allow us to clean out the sink more efficiently. My idea is this: rather than have a single person be responsible for deleting a thread, we have a tally system. For example, instead of having a single delete action put into motion by clicking on the delete link, we have that link create a "vote" (similar to the voting in the FAQ). The current number of votes against would be displayed next to the link: "Delete (There are currently 2 votes to delete this thread)".
Then, when three votes are accrued, the delete link would be replaced by a message that says "Deletion Impending". The thread would then be automatically deleted 24 hours after the third deletion vote is cast. Of course, at any point along the way (including during the "deletion impending" stage), a Mad Sci (or Mad Lib... hehe, mad lib) say, "Whoa, we don't want this to be deleted!" Then he or she could take the necessary steps to preserve the thread.
I believe that this system will help solve our problem in two ways: Firstly, it will encourage people to vote for deletion because they will not have to deal with the full burden of responsibility. Say you come across a thread that you think is worthless, but there are no votes for deletion yet. You can, with a clear conscience, click on delete, knowing that two other people have to agree with you for action to be taken. Likewise, you come across a thread that you think should be deleted, and you notice that it already has two votes for deletion. You can, again with a clear conscience, click on delete, knowing that two other people already feel the way you do, and if someone really wants to preserve this thread they can still do so within the next 24 hours (we could even have a link in the sink that would display "deletion impending" threads so people can see them all at a glance).
Likewise, if it becomes easier to delete threads, people may become more diligent in preserving the the threads they don't want to see deleted. If we had the "deletion impending" page, for example, we could take a quick look at the page at certain points throughout the day, make sure that nothing there is something we would like to see preserved, and then let nature (so to speak) take its course. Also, if we are browsing through the threads in the sink and we notice that a thread already has a vote or two against it, we can then immediately choose to preserve it.
This system would ideally create a situation where a MS or ML would never look at a thread in the sink without taking an action. As it is now, I imagine that there are a whole bunch of threads that people look at and say, "Well, I don't want to preserve this, but maybe someone else will," and nothing ever happens. For example, there is one thread in particular that I noticed when I first looked at the sink and thought, "Gee this looks like a perfect candidate for deletion." I even mentioned this to TP, and he agreed. One week later, the thread is still there. This is, of course, as much my fault as anyone else's, but I think the greater fault lies in the current system. Under the new system, we wouldn't have to think to ourselves, "Gee, I'd like to see this deleted, but someone else might not." We could vote for deletion, essentially saying, "Hey, I think this should be deleted. If you agree with me, vote for deletion. If not, get off your butt and preserve it." The current system encourages inaction, while the new system would encourage action. There would no longer be any reason to simply pass over a thread, and I believe this would lead to faster archiving and deletion, and thus faster clearing of the sink.
I do, of course, understand that this will require extra coding, possibly a significant amount of extra coding. I also know that this task will likely fall to TP, who at this very moment is probably struggling to identify some obscure plant. I believe that if we are really serious about cutting the sink down to size, though, drastic measures are called for. If we only focus on preservation and leave deletion to take care of itself, we are doomed to a sink that will continue to grow until it blots out the sun from the sky, dooming us to eternal winter.
OK, maybe I got a bit carried away there, but I feel pretty strongly about this. Opinions, improvements, and other ideas are welcome.
Thank you for your time,
The Librarian
[Edit: This system is based on the premise that most people think like I do. If I am wrong, of course, this sytem won't work. From where I'm standing, though, it's the best I can come up with.]
You want a three-sentence proposal? Too lazy to read my masterpiece of reasoning and rhetoric? OK, here you go:
I propose that we implement a deletion voting system in the Sink that works like the voting system in the FAQ. Instead of clicking on a link to automatically delete a thread, we would click on a link that would add a vote for deletion. Twenty-four hours after accruing a third deletion vote, a thread would automatically be deleted from the Sink, but at any point in the process (up until the actual deletion) a thread may still be preserved.
How's that? See, I can be either verbose or concise, depending on my mood and the demands of my public.
(Looking back at my original post, I noticed that paragraphs 5 and 6 are the actual proposal, while the rest is support for that proposal. I know it's a lot of text, but I wasn't sure how much convincing would be necessary.)
Mad Librarian?
Is this a new rank? How does one get to be one?
As full as the sink is, it looks like we could use a good dishwasher! arrrrrrrrh
Great idea Suho. I enjoyed reading both versions.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 07-11-2004 11:39
Indeed, Mad librarian is a new rank (or more correctly, an duty) - they can clean up the sink, and move threads between forums.
Emps and I have taken steps serveral weeks ago to establish this since it became appearent that the sink was growing constantly despite the intervention of the MS.
There have been some initial appointments, and I'm still waiting on feedback from a couple of people, but then there'll be an 'official' announcement post - possibly with a request for further applications (we'll have to see how well the hand full of MLs will be handling the sink).
Okay, again I'll admit that I haven't been active here so you can tell me to blow it out my ass...
But I've looked all of this over Suho and the thing about your post that absolutely BEAMS at me is this:
quote:If TP deleted every single thread he didn't preserve, we would basically get an archive skewed to his tastes. If everyone acted this way, we would get archives skewed to the tastes of whoever acted the quickest. No one wants this, and thus the reluctance to delete threads.
I see this to really be at the root of the issue.
First off, I'll say that I disagree with your proposal... I think it's just more of a "process" than this needs/should be.
But in response to that bit that I've quoted:
While Doc assigned a good chunk of MadSci's, he also designated some forum-specific moderators (Psychotics). You remember in the old version of the Asylum that specific individuals were listed as moderators of each forum? I always viewed that as an indicator of whom the Doc thought would be prime to make such decisions of deletion vs preservation when it came to threads long dead. MadSci's were more than welcome to archive about as they pleased, of course... but the method of naming out a few specific individuals went a long way when it came down to "responsibility" in my opinion. It's very possible that I'm the only one who viewed it this way, however.
Because there are/were a number of people assigned, the preservation of threads is accomplished through a number of minds already. If TP gets to a thread and deletes it before I go in there and preserve it..... quite simply: "oh well". No point in losing sleep over it. Stuff comes up here a thousand times over again anyway... we'll save it the next time.
If there was ONE.. and only ONE individual assigned to archiving... then yes, I whole-heartedly agree that the situation that you describe of being "skewed" would very much exist. But that is simply not the case.
To be entirely honest, I haven't a fuckin' clue how this new archive/preservation/sink thing works. Not the slightest idea.
But I will say this. When I used to do archiving, I used to hack down and delete a lot of stuff. As a matter of fact, I always thought I was deleting more than I should... but I just kept right on doing it. Again -- the thread is bound to come up again if it's all that important.
So, cutting through all that, I guess it all weighs on "reluctance to delete threads".
It's just silly. Delete it or don't. Move on and hit up the next one. People weren't asked to help out through their ability to not make decisions.
From: buttcrack of the midwest Insane since: Oct 2000
posted 07-11-2004 19:55
Yea, what Michael said.
I also haven`t been active in cleaning up, but when I was, it seemed a simple decision. "does this thread hold important info ? " If yes, save it. If no, delete it. Done.
All in all, I probably saved about 10% of the Photoshop forum. Much is redundant info, many threads are simply incomplete, for any of several reasons, and in either case, not worth saving.
I hope to become more helpful soon, but no promises.
OK, a bit of clarification on the "skewed" issue. I was exaggerating for the purpose of the example--I was dealing with the hypothetical situation of there being only one person who archived. It was certainly unrealistic, but the point I was trying to make was not that the archives are/might be/will be skewed, or that it even matters if they are skewed. What I was trying to illustrate was a way of thinking that might lead to reluctance to delete threads. I'm not saying that's what actually happens.
The important thing to note here is that my whole theory/proposal is based on the assumption that people think like I do (as I mentioned at the very end). People like db obviously take a different, more confident approach. Me, I'm fairly new at this, and thus still apprehensive about deleting threads.
The bottom line is this: I'm new, and I really don't know what's going on, so what I said above is just what it looks like from where I'm standing. Forget what I said about anything getting skewed (because that's not the point I was trying to make). The fact is that the sink is growing. For my part, it's growing because I am apprehensive about deleting threads. And since I'm the only person I can speak for, I made the proposal I did. Maybe that means I have an exceptional ability to not make decisions, and maybe it means that I should never have been asked to help out.
If Michael and db are correct, then the only reason the sink is still growing is that people are just not spending the time going through threads. For that, I have no answer. If the consensus is against my proposal, though, I will take their advice to heart and begin hacking away at the sink with a machete. Given little direction on what to do, I was just trying to do what I thought was right.
[Edit: Hmm... I suppose that might have sounded a bit pissy. Wasn't trying to get pissy. Just trying to figure out how things work.]
and while we're on the subject of cleaning up; the FAQ could use some working over too.
of course, all you registered inmates reading this may not can do anything about the sink,
but you can help with the FAQ if you are inclined to do so. Who has admin control?
i try to change a few things as i find them, but sometimes it's frustrating to figure what should
be changed or left alone, so i just leave it. does that ring a bell?
i'm not very good at organizing things - or i'm just too lazy most of the time. anyway, i have to
agree that a major potion of these things are pretty redundant and/or useless. somewhat like
the rest of the internet is getting to be. (haha - not really funny though). anyway, again. . .
*fades out
edit/ ok then, i'm sitting here perusing the FAQ again and sipping a few beers,
working out a few changes (maybe), and i ran across this Need a thread archived?
for any of us lesser inmates who might like to help with the sink. (?)
please use your better judgment, though!!!
just hope i haven't opened another can of worms for the mods.
i may need a life.
Michael: OK, I think I'm starting to get the picture. Thanks to your (and db's) comments, I think I have a better handle on what I need to do.
And now, I'm off to the sink to do some damage.
[Edit: One page down, 211 to go. A few comments from my experience:
For one, I noticed that preserving a thread does not prevent it from being deleted. It would seem to me that if an MS or ML took the time to preserve a thread, it should be safeguarded against deletion.
Also, the titles of the pages (what appears up at the very top of the browser) read like this: "Thread Title (preserved)." I didn't notice this at first, but it suddenly caught my eye just as I was about to hit the delete button on a thread. Knowing that preserved threads are not protected against deletion, I quickly hit the back button and hit the preserve button to see what information (keywords, description, abstract) had been added. I was puzzled to find no preservation info at all. Apparently all threads have (preserved) in the page title...
I was a bit fuzzy at first on the difference between the "short description" and the abstract, but I made the following distinction: the short description serves as a descriptive title (since thread titles don't always accurately describe their contents) while the abstract is more along the lines of an academic abstract (something with which I am quite familiar).
For the record, I preserved 4 of 32 threads that I looked at. The remaining 28 are now in that great big hard drive in the sky. I must admit that it was all rather... therapeutic.
As for what criteria I used to determine which threads should be deleted and which threads should be saved. I asked myself the following two questions: "Does this thread contain any useful information?" and "Might someone want to look at this thread again in the future?" If the answer was yes to either of those questions, I preserved the thread. As you can see from the results of my machete work, very few threads actually met those criteria.
Stuff I deleted: threads of the "link and discuss" variety, threads that asked a question but got no answer, threads whose primary link was dead, threads that went nowhere (no or very few replies), threads of the "shooting the breeze" variety, etc.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, consider it a chronicle of my journey as an ML. I'm hoping that perhaps it will be helpful if there are others who, like me, are trying to figure out what to do about the sink.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 07-13-2004 20:39
Preserved threads say 'preserved topic', - not preserved threads say 'topic awaiting preservation' - and I agree that the deletion routine should check at least as long as this is only happening once a night... I just handed in my herbarium... maybe I'll find some time on the coming weekend.
I was referring to the page title that the browser displays at the very top (in other words, what appears in the <title> tags in the html), not the title that appears on the page itself. Both preserved and not-yet-preseved threads have "(Preserved)" after the title. Nothing fatal, of course, just a bit confusing.
From: buttcrack of the midwest Insane since: Oct 2000
posted 07-15-2004 09:28
Just for information's sake, Suho, that`s very much the approach I take. Can`t tell you whether it`s right or not, but that`s the way I do it.
Sounds to me like you`re on the right track. I mean, for something to be preserved, it should have information in it that may be needed again. I`m a bit of a pack rat , but why save a bunch of crap on purpose ?
:0
You know, it didn't occur to me until I started deleting stuff left and right that my own pack rat tendencies may have been something else that hindered me. I think that's why I found it so therapeutic.
Thanks for the info, though. I was afraid that I might have gone a bit overboard, but it makes me feel better to know that I'm not the only one doing it that way.
posted 07-10-2004 05:05
arrrrrrrrh
Who has admin control?