NationStates

All of it's a great plan, Fris! I hope it happens.

Bump.

Bump

I'm unfortunately busy right now. I'll get to this when I can, and keep you posted.

Bump. Again.

Bump.

Definitely still support this idea.

While it'd be great if admins implemented this idea, as a temporary solution, I fixed a long running bug in my WA Vote & Proposal archive, so that proposal text is now stored correctly:

http://cerulean.nsr3n.info/wa_vote_records/proposals/

You can look at the GA entries for "Repeal: “WA General Fund”" and SC entries for "Repeal: "Commend Lyras"" and "Commend Paffnia" to see what new proposal entries will look like. They should have all the information they used to have, plus the full proposal text.

Unfortunately, I can't fix older entries. For those, there's still the other pieces of information (author, title, approvals, etc.), in case those are of use.

I know my opinion isn't particularly significant, but I do support the idea, for the record. Old proposals could be a wellspring of ideas for aspiring authors (cough cough, like myself).

I don't support indexing every submitted proposal when some are embarrassing only if they have reached queue or are good

Borovan3 wrote:I don't support indexing every submitted proposal when some are embarrassing only if they have reached queue or are good

If they're already archived by TNP (and now, Europe) then how is that not non-unique?

Borovan3 wrote:I don't support indexing every submitted proposal when some are embarrassing only if they have reached queue or are good

'Good' is an extremely nebulous

Bump

IA is maintaining an archive HERE at this time.

Bump re: viewtopic.php?p=38444232#p38444232

This is a good idea.

Comfed wrote:This is a good idea.

It is, and it would be very easy to implement. Fris has indicated as much earlier in this thread.

I've brought it to Violet's attention.

I'm not sure what Elu has/had in mind, but imo this isn't practical with our current system architecture. The entire WA has to remain resident in memory and is very slow to load and save itself--it does not use a database like dispatches do. Storing a thousand or so ex-proposals would increase the size of this WA object by an order of magnitude and create a significant performance drag.

So implementation requires a pretty fundamental rewrite of how the WA stores data.

[violet] wrote:I'm not sure what Elu has/had in mind, but imo this isn't practical with our current system architecture. The entire WA has to remain resident in memory and is very slow to load and save itself--it does not use a database like dispatches do. Storing a thousand or so ex-proposals would increase the size of this WA object by an order of magnitude and create a significant performance drag.

So implementation requires a pretty fundamental rewrite of how the WA stores data.

So, even the 1000 or so (GA+SC+historical) passed resolutions stay in memory? If those are somehow stored, couldn't proposals be stored the same way?

Merni wrote:So, even the 1000 or so (GA+SC+historical) passed resolutions stay in memory? If those are somehow stored, couldn't proposals be stored the same way?

It all stays in memory, yep, but the bigger it gets, the worse it performs.

[violet] wrote:I'm not sure what Elu has/had in mind, but imo this isn't practical with our current system architecture. The entire WA has to remain resident in memory and is very slow to load and save itself--it does not use a database like dispatches do. Storing a thousand or so ex-proposals would increase the size of this WA object by an order of magnitude and create a significant performance drag.

So implementation requires a pretty fundamental rewrite of how the WA stores data.

That is indeed why it hasn't been done prior. Some of the (smaller) changes made recently to support frontiers may be a promising direction to take here, but proposals are more complicated than membership.

I don't know if I'm still allowed to post here, but how about just storing resolutions that got to queue, whether legal or illegal. This could surely cut down on a bunch of the spam proposals?

Is it possible to have a different part of the site infrastructure scrap the relevant pages, filter for the proposal text or failed resolution, then index by proposal ID in a different, more flexible database? Essentially the whole operation, included the recorded proposals, would live in a database separate from the WA?

Unibot III wrote:Is it possible to have a different part of the site infrastructure scrap the relevant pages, filter for the proposal text or failed resolution, then index by proposal ID in a different, more flexible database? Essentially the whole operation, included the recorded proposals, would live in a database separate from the WA?

Well, the possibility is obvious given that it's already been done that way (by me). The difficulty I think for UC is implementation. That part I can't say I am at all privy to.