On 14/12/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden(a)yahoo.ie> wrote:
Right now, because we don't know who has checked
what stuff some
stuff is being checked to death, while other articles are not being checked
at all. It would be a big help if we could spot the checked and unchecked
articles and so focus our attentions on those that need a check.
Incidentally, my understanding is that CDVF (which I must play with)
handles this okayish; it tags individual diffs as looked at or not.
This is especially a problem with watchlists. I log on, glance down
the watchlist from the previous night... hmm. There's an eight-hour
old edit to [[Liberalism]]; it won't be vandalism, since a dozen eyes
will have checked it, but there's a forty-minute old one to [[Neil
Armstrong]] that probably is. And these normally safe assumptions are
what leads to us losing three quarters of a page for a week every now
and again...
A lot of IP users add or remove something, and then immediately revert
it. I quite often rollback these - even though there's overall no
change - simply so that people don't waste time looking at the diff.
Never sure if it helps or not, but...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk