Re: Proposal: Nuke negative comments
| From: | Larry Garfield | Date: | Mon, 06 Jun 2022 00:31:35 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: Nuke negative comments | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 | Groups: | php.doc |
| Request: | Send a blank email to phpdoc+get-969388120@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On Tue, May 10, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Daniel P. Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:28 PM Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm fine with some slightly stricter threshold for purging (-5, or -1 but also at
>> least X months old, or whatever). No strong preference here.
>
> This is another good idea of which I didn't think. I've removed
> thousands of notes that were using coding styles that had deprecated
> functions and other such detrimental qualities over the years, but
> making a point to check - at least after EOLs and major releases - is
> probably a really good idea, Larry.
>
>> .... (I never use Windows, so I have no idea if it's valuable or misleading.)
>
> Hear, hear. Over a hundred devices (servers included) in our
> house, and - aside from the as/when needed spin-up of a Windows VM -
> not a single Microsoft product. Nothing against it, like I used to be
> in the nineties and early aughts, but this was one of my feelings
> toward what Chris pointed out, specifically, about a heavily-downvoted
> Windows-based function notes. Was it because there were factual,
> programmatic design errors, or just pseudo-/cyber-cultural bias?
>
>> To Dan's point, I am happy to discuss better options than this sledgehammer. Mainly
>> I'm just trying to improve the signal to noise ratio to make the janitorial work easier and
>> more productive. But I don't want a mythical future solution to block a simple and easy one
>> now, either. (Having a stricter one-time purge rule could still leave us sufficient data to test
>> more nuanced tools in the future.)
>
> We stand in agreement here. Considering the consistent amount of
> posts and voting on the user notes, it's likely to be substantial
> enough to outweigh the current state of disrepair it's in now.
>
> Regardless of opinions and turnout, though, I have to thank you,
> Larry, for bringing up the point. Because fully-manual intervention
> just isn't a reasonable approach anymore, and it's becoming a
> hinderance to the quality of the documentation as a whole.
So can we proceed here? Only a select few have access to run any mass-purge like we've been
discussing (which is good), so those few, are you open to it? What deletion rule would we want to
go with?
--Larry Garfield