To use an analogy, character-named tropes are like tumors. If you have a tumor, it can lead to cancer; if it's malignant, removing it could save your life. But not all tumors are malignant, and we don't need to perform a dangerous procedure with nasty side effects to get rid of a benign tumor. I'm not a doctor, but I think that before you start chemotherapy, you want to do tests to check whether the tumor is actually malignant, right?
edited 8th Oct '11 4:05:41 PM by troacctid
There are 1004 open threads in TRS. We are closing in on the cap and it is a big achievement. A big YAY and thank you to the people who have been working so hard on this.
How are we going to handle incorporating new threads into the mix? Are we going to lower the cap number to gain more wriggle room or are we going to allow one or two threads through the velvet rope as one or two threads leave the party?
We might have a glitch; I'm not sure the cap is working. It says it's at 1000 even, but it said that before people made a few threads.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.RE: Last page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG
Putting aside We Are Not Wikipedia, there might be things we can learn from that, and the idea of using gamification as a tool to incentivize contributors.
(Whee for [http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Broken-Games-Better-Change/dp/1594202850
Reality is Broken])
Double posting to see if this
◊ is good candidate for an icon to indicate a curator.
It's a lampshade. Maybe I only know that because I was looking for lampshades. Here' a bigger version.
◊
edited 10th Oct '11 3:47:11 PM by FastEddie
Goal: Clear, Concise and WittyI did notice the TRS went under capacity last night. Predictably, it got filled back up fast. I can't complain there are more tropes that need to be looked at, but on the other hand, this doesn't mean we must always have 1000 active topics in TRS.
Here's an idea to chip in: Every time a new topic posted causes TRS to hit its limit, that limit gets decreased by one? (Limit never to go below, say, 500. Or 200, depending on how strict we want to be about the TRS workload) Translates to a rule that we should resolve two old topics for every new one posted.
edited 10th Oct '11 11:35:29 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.The only problem I see is, that opening a new thread is a matter of luck. If people work hard to close threads so they can open their own topic, it is possible that someone who randomly passes by grabs this free spot. Especially the fact that you have to wait for a mod to come and close your resolved thread makes it really hard to immediately open your own.
I suggest a cap with a little bit more room. After reaching the cap e.g. ten free spots are open if this ten spots are filled twenty threads have to be closed. This gives the people doing the cleanup a little bit more time to react and open their own threads.
Maybe a reward system of sort. When the TRS is at cap, and you holler for a close and it DOES get close, you "Earn" half a point for opening a new thread. At least till we hit a smaller backlog number.
It rewards people who close threads, and doesn't make it luck based to open new ones. And it makes people close 2 threads for each new one.
edited 11th Oct '11 1:57:13 AM by Ghilz
That is true, calling for a lock is way easier than the renaming/wick cleaning/description fixing... which has to be done before.
Cleaning some wicks before being able to open a thread sounds nice, but how would we count this? (automatic counting sounds like a invitation to misuse)
If we want to use a reward system it should work in a way that a mod rewards the aktive people when closing a thread and not just the one who called for a lock. Of course that would mean a mod has to read the whole thread carefully before locking it and I am not sure how much extra work the mods want and can do.
Man, you guys sure are doing a mighty fine job.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.@Osmium: I seem to recall that the number got down to 997 or so before people actually started posting new topics in TRS again. It's not like people were monitoring things like a hawk, but that's aside the point anyway: Do we really need 10+ pages of tropes to fix?
TRS being back under limit doesn't mean we are free to simply ignore it again, we need to continue reducing that number, and if this requires having a programmatic means to enforce it then so be it. I was previously thinking to myself that Eddie should scale back the limits slowly, like saying now that it's under 1000 it should be scaled back to 950 or 900, then 850/800, etc. until we can get it to a truly manageable number.
edited 11th Oct '11 7:40:55 AM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.


I think the best way to increase throughput of the TRS is to establish clear precedent on just two or three issues.
For example, JAFAAC is universally accepted as undesirable, so reporting it in Image Pickin' gets dealt with in a matter of hours. This works. But reporting (e.g.) any character-named trope to TRS will result in several pages of seen-it-before debate where the same regulars point out their like or dislike of such tropes. This does not work.
It would help to have a clear precedent either way: either it is a valid criterion for renaming (in which case, skip straight to picking a new name) or it is not (in which case, close the thread). Either solution is better than another repeat of that debate.
The same argument applies to trope names in Japanese or not in English in general; to line of dialogue titles; and that's pretty much it, I think.