@Eli.Tanenbaum Hey man you gotta look more closely at these before you reject them, you’ve rejected like 10 in a row that should not be rejected. The cards you are rejecting for having no source are all part of various bulk suggestion groups containing groupings of cards that are intimately related and therefore lead to significant interference because they don’t reference one another. The information on them is exclusively taken from other cards in the deck and therefore is sourced (that information is included in the rationale!). Per maintainer guidelines 3.6.4 it’s not even necessary to have three maintainer upvotes to push changes like these since they are exclusively “Adding relevant information (images or text) to connect concepts from another card already in the deck” to prevent interference on closely related cards. Obviously they usually have a lot of extra text in the extra section so I don’t submit them without review, but they should NOT be rejected for lack of source.
Please stop rejecting them all now I have to go back through and redo stuff by hand lol
Hello @joshuamb , thank you for your explanation and my apologies for the inconvenience. Per a previous discussion with @Ahmed7 on a different thread I got the impression that we should be more aggressive in rejecting suggestions that do not cite a source in light of the large number of pages of suggestions that has accumulated. I understand that the bulk suggestions are related and interfere with each other. However, since I did not see specific NIDs or other sources cited (e.g. a note that a given suggestion is supported by other note nid:12345 in the suggestion), I rejected them. It is possible that I have misunderstood the context of the conversation or been overly aggressive in rejecting the suggestions. If this is the case, I can manually re-suggest them myself to save you the work, copy/paste your rationale, and credit you. I was under the impression that with these sorts of suggestions it was necessary to cite the specific nids each piece of information comes from. In any case would appreciate clarification from @Ahmed7 in this matter. Apologies again for the inconvenience.
No worries about redoing them, I am happy to redo them myself!
I am not aware of the specific thread you are referring to, but I’m on the same page that the rationale should indicate the nid. In the case of these suggestions, each bulk suggestion just involves moving content between cards in the suggestion itself. So if you click on the bulk id you can see all cards where all the information came from, even faster than manually looking up each nid. I usually try and point that out but definitely don’t always remember to fully explain, that’s my bad.
Also, since the rationale is the same for all notes in the case of a bulk suggestion, if I include the nids, I would just be pasting the nid of every card in the bulk suggestion into the rationale for every card in the bulk suggestion lol. Which is basically just what the bulk suggestion id does anyway.
This is why I got out of the habit of manually pasting the nid into each rationale. Going forward I can maybe put the nids into the rationale so people can see at glance that I have not omitted a source, unless someone has a suggestion for a more efficient way
That’s ok! Now that you’ve explained it to me I understand better where you were coming from and I’ll keep in mind that in the case of bulk suggestions that the NIDs all reference each other. I think that makes sense as a method of documentation and the bulk id lets you strike a balance between efficiency and having more meticulous documentation. But for single note suggestions I think the NIDs are definitely necessary. Sorry again for the misunderstanding.
Suggesting as a bulk suggestion comes with a bulk suggestion ID and these can be used as sources for themselves, no need to cite them
@Eli.Tanenbaum these suggestions are fine to stay, they don’t need nid’s if they are part of the bulk suggestion like you guys have discussed
@joshuamb you can state at the top for example “sources for these changes are in the bulk suggestion itself” that’s totally fine
Also in general I give a bit more leeway for maintainers before rejection since I know you guys know the guidelines, so it’s fine to keep these in the queue (even if there is no source provided, which is not the case here, just giving an example in general). You guys can do the same for any suggestions in the future for any maintainers, but for example, you can comment and ask for a proper rationale and source rather than reject outright
Thank you guys!!
No problem! I also wasn’t aware he was a maintainer