[seqfan] Re: The size of the "awaiting rewiew" queue
Alonso Del Arte
alonso.delarte at gmail.com
Thu Mar 24 17:43:41 CET 2011
To an extent, that is already happening. Of the changes I have marked
reviewed, the vast majority of them fall into your category (1),
specifically, Mathematica programs, spelling corrections and updating of
links. I'm sure there are some Associate Editors who know about toroids,
knots, homeomorphisms and other topics of which I know nothing.
At most I've marked three new sequences as reviewed, though there have been
times I would have done so except for one little detail, such as not having
Haskell or PARI, but everything else in that new sequence checks out.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM, peter.luschny <
peter.luschny at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to think most people here understand the concept of
> > self-restraint, and that there's no one here who would only understand a
> > hard set limit.
> I think it is useful to make a difference in these two cases:
> (1) Updates to comments, references, links and code snippets.
> (2) New sequences.
> (1) In this case there can indeed accumulate a larger number of
> updates within a short period of time. I experienced this
> when I had a certain subject under consideration.
> After I made an observation which I think has the value to be
> communicated I often immediately see 5 or more other places in
> OEIS which directly or indirectly are affected by a such an update.
> Thus in this case I think there should be no restrictions
> on the number of updates. This database lives from a constant
> stream of small updates and small additions.
> The editing process for these cases might be simplified and
> accelerated if associated editors are introduced which have
> the competence to check special tasks and the right to approve
> them immediately.
> For instance checking references or links is something
> which does not require a special background knowledge.
> Similarly some editors might just check contributions to
> programs of a special computer language and approve them
> (2) To contribute a new sequence is a very different sort
> of contribution in my experience. This is normally a comparativly
> rare occurrence and much more time consuming.
> I believe that a restriction of the number of contributions
> of new sequences within a certain time window does makes sens.
> Say, for instance, 4 per day. This allows almost 1500 per year!
> (Be warned, I just looked up my records and saw that in the
> last six years I contributed 32 new sequences per year on average;
> thus I would not be affected much by this rule :)
> Such a limit would have two benefits: It would stop some bulk
> submissions which cause much work but sometimes only little value.
> And it would be a fair rule applicable to all users (not editors)
> which could be easily controlled by the software: Just restrict
> the allocation to a maximum of 4 new sequence numbers per day and user.
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
More information about the SeqFan