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

[Charles Greathouse]

I like the idea of making new sequences 'cost' more than editing existing
sequences. A limit of 9 with new sequences costing 3 would seem reasonable:
submitting many new sequences at a time is usually problematic anyway.

If I have a chance I'll dig up the source and see what that would entail.

Charles Greathouse
Path Robotics


On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 2:27 PM Antti Karttunen <antti.karttunen at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/
>