[seqfan] A suggestion regarding b-file uploads and edit quotas.

[Antti Karttunen]

On 3/9/19, Neil Sloane <njasloane at gmail.com> wrote:
> Antti, can you send that to SeqFans?  Say that you are doing it at my
> suggestion.

Will do, see below, with a few edits.

>
> You could say something like:
>
> I just sent this to Neil, and he suggested that I send it to the full list.
> (He says he agrees with the first part of the message.)
>
>
> Best regards
> Neil
>
> Neil J. A. Sloane, President, OEIS Foundation.
> 11 South Adelaide Avenue, Highland Park, NJ 08904, USA.
> Also Visiting Scientist, Math. Dept., Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
> Phone: 732 828 6098; home page: http://NeilSloane.com
> Email: njasloane at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 12:46 PM Antti Karttunen <antti.karttunen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, the rule that one should not upload a b-file before the sequence
>> has been approved, is not (IMHO) only stupid, but also even
>> pernicious.
>>
>> What I suggest, how it should be changed:
>>
>> If at the editing process and after a few PinkBox-comments, none of
>> the editors is against the sequence (or nobody finds that it is an
>> erroneous duplicate of some existing sequence), then it should be
>> ALRIGHT for some of the editors (not the submitter himself) to upload
>> a b-file for that sequence. This especially if the sequence is from a
>> quality-submitter, who is known to submit approvable sequences.
>>
>> On the other hand, with certain contributors, who often submit sequences
>> with erroneous terms (because hand-computed?), but whose sequences
>> still are mostly sound and approved, the process of creating a PARI- or some other
>> program, and then uploading a b-file (if the sequence is not wholly
>> off the wall) works as an essential error checking process, where at
>> least any erroneous terms will be caught, because the server software
>> checks the b-file data to the existing data section terms.
>>
>> At least for me, the editing of other people's drafts would be much
>> more motivating if I could create PARI-programs for them and upload a
>> b-file right away for those sequences. (Well here also I often
>> break the rules, as I will upload a b-file anyway, if I see that the
>> sequence is sane and sound and one that will be approved).
>>
>> One alternative I have played with, but which would require non-simple
>> changes at the server-software, would be that there would be two
>> separate quotas for each user: one, generally smaller one, for
>> creating new sequences (and maybe larger edits to existing sequences),
>> and one, larger or limitless, for uploading b-files and adding
>> look-keywords to existing sequences, and such. I guess that now people
>> with a very small quota, like 3 or 5, will often avoid uploading
>> b-files to their sequences later, because each such upload eats the
>> quota, which they prefer to use to submit their new ideas.

A simpler idea: double everybody's quota, then make the creation of
each new sequence to consume 2 points from it, and an edit of any
existing sequence to consume just one point. That should be quite easy
to implement, right? (One could tune the ratio. In the de-luxe model
it could be even user-specific?)


Best regards,

Antti