This is weird.
But the good kind of weird.
SCP-2673 Containment Maintenance Log / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-2673 Containment Maintenance Log
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-2673 Containment Maintenance Log.
- By default entries are sorted in chronological order
- Entries that fall to -3 are automatically removed from the list, which is for most purposes as good as deletion, since nobody will ever see them again after that anyway unless they go looking.
- You can link directly to any of the entries, either using the anchor or the entry page (which redirects to the anchor). Note that unfortunately this will only work on the default sort option.
- Authorship information for each entry is available in the Attribution Metadata page.
- To view entries that have fallen below the rating threshold, go to http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2673-containment-maintenance-log/rating/<100/.
Traffic to these logs is much lower than other articles, additionally few readers are going to bother to vote on every entry, and it's assumed that if the limit was -10 then nothing would ever be filtered. Presumably this number is still subject to calibration. Thoughts?
-5 is more aesthetically pleasing to me. In the absence of data on traffic or vote patterns, that's as good a reason as any. I also miss the 24 hour announcement before deletion that mainlist entries get.
I don't know if this is code-able, but -3 and 24 hours since posting would be a more satisfying system. Otherwise, -5.
Pentaphilia, eh?
All it is doing is not displaying entries below a certain threshold, so no it isn't possible to time it.
I figured as much. I'd prefer to start with a harder threshold, and make it easier to delete things if there aren't enough votes.
And yes, I'm guilty of Pentaphilia.
Currently it means that -4 and less aren't shown, so really we are talking about a difference of one vote. I think I will leave it unless there are are more calls to change it.
Looks good. I will delete the old one when I get a chance.
I guess I should screenshot the discussion page before it goes? Unless there's a way to merge the discussions?
Honestly I have no idea how the forum stuff works. There might be a way to migrate the stuff over but I'd have no idea what it is.
Well if a mod wants to merge the threads, they have my permission, and I would be grateful. Otherwise, I will just take screenshots and upload them as files when I delete the original on Monday. Thanks!
I've never seen a page with multiple rating modules before. o.O Can we get that on Extranormal Events, I wonder, to help clear out the chaff?
I imagine that would be a much more significant undertaking (there's a lot of entries you'll need to make into semi-pages), and if done the Anomalous Items and Unexplained Locations will need the same (which will also take a lot of effort). I'll agree that it could help with quality, so it may be worth it.
I write stuff. Yipee.
Staff are actually planning on doing this stuff with the 914 log, but this is still experimental, so I don't expect this stuff to be used on all of these different logs soon.
I've never seen a page with multiple rating modules before.
Neither had I; it was actually a rather significant technical challenge to figure it out and make it work.
Can we get that on Extranormal Events?
The eventual plan is to upgrade all of the large collaborative logs to this, but as you might image it is fairly time-consuming to migrate all of the entries over, and we're also waiting to make sure that there aren't any issues with this small-scale test before proceeding.
I've uploaded the old discussion as a pdf to files.
IMO bump up the perPage parameter on that listpages, unless there's a reason not to display all entries at once?
Art blog | Personal/political blog | I'm un-retired from the SCP community. Go check out Regicide, my Homestuck fanfic, too. | Death to America.
I asked this over at unexplained locations a while ago, but is there any way to edit or view hidden items on the list? I did a raven parody, and I assume that it got a low enough rating not to be displayed.
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2673-containment-maintenance-log-entry:11/norender/true and look at the Page Source.
/forum/t-2223376/scp-2673-containment-maintenance-log#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 30 Oct 2017 00:04
