RFC: Things to ask yourself before posting a question on PerlMonks

[taint]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[jdporter]

Good lord.

I thank you -- I think -- for doing all that investigation; but I still can't tell from your post which node got "recycled", nor what its new nor original parent is/was. Please be plain. And here's a tip: if you make people do work to get your point.... they won't get your point.

For reference, see how to print only 47 and another number will rejected and when user give 47 that number only print ?. Which I, and an Anonymous Monk, also show where the original post lives.

I looked there; I didn't see any comments by you nor Anonymous Monk. Are you perhaps insane?

I think it's a perfect candidate for a section in the PerlMonks FAQ.

Before people go suggesting additions to the PerlMonks FAQ, they should be familiar with the current contents of the PerlMonks FAQ.

[marto]

For clarification, after a chat in the CB where virudinesh made very little sense they posted how to print only 47 and another number will rejected and when user give 47 that number only print ?.

Ignoring what they'd been told in the CB, and in response to their previous question they posted have synax error in this coding? containing what seems to be feedback from someone they provided the code untested, nonsense code, directly pasted the response from this third party without any supporting text.

This was relatively shortly followed up by Reaped: hai monks how to keep on asking user inputs till you get 47.? out of desperation, so we could help them land a perl job at an interview they were undergoing.

How linking from PerlMonks FAQ to any of these threads can result in anything other than confusion to the reader is beyond me. IMHO taint has offered nothing support whatever case they are trying to make for such a change, nor is this post any clearer than their previous contributions.

[marto]

"As such. I think it's a perfect candidate for a section in the PerlMonks FAQ. Titled, as I've done so here, in this post."

What are you suggesting this "section" should contain? What will this bring us that we don't already have in other guides or advice notes? Please read and understand this (also this and the advice others have given on the matter) lest this become another of your runaway threads where you believe you've explained yourself adequately, yet aren't making sense.

Also, your 'for reference' link is for the first post on this subject, not either of the reposts. You've changed the link, providing alternate link text so that it seems to link to one of the subsequent nodes, and again haven't bothered to check your post content when previewing.

[Anonymous Monk]

I have a RFC too!

Things taint should ask himself before posting suggestions on PerlMonks.

- Do I understand what I want?

- Do others understand what I want?

- Did they understand what I want in the past?

- Do I care if others understand what I want?

[sundialsvc4]

I think that the existing topics such as “How do I ask a question more effectively” already serve this need well enough.

We have to at least try to be civil and polite ... (“must ... control ... fist ... of death ... ... must ... control ...”) ... and not send people over to StackExchange, there to bitch speak negatively about how impolite we are over here.

...hmmmmm... Or do we?   ;-)

Seriously, I would generally prefer that people feel “free to ask,” albeit after they have spent just a wee bit of time with Super Search, than for them to feel “frozen out” and therefore not willing to ask at all.   (Even words meant “entirely in jest” can land like a ton of red-hot bricks, and they won’t let you hear the scream although it happened.)   I think that the site already does a pretty good job of guiding people’s questions, and of pointing them to those resources on the “submit a new question” pages.

[taint]

Good Lord!

It appears it's time to review what my understanding of what others will interpret from what/how I post here in the Monks Discussion area.

Really, it all seemed so clear. I'm terribly sorry, some of you don't see it that way -- really

marto: while I have read the links provided. It seemed that the (my) post post spoke for itself. As I felt, did the posting(s) I referenced therein.

Given the responses, and the substance therein. I kindly ask the NodeReaper to reap this post. As it will never reach it's intended destination, or purpose.

The referenced post, was, in my humble opinion, a perfect, concise, example of things one might do well to ask themselves, prior to posting on PerlMonks.

While this was well intentioned. Sadly. It was an "Epic Fail".

Thanks for the feedback

--Chris

Updated: that's NodeReaper, not Reaper.

[jdporter]

I thank you for your contributions. You seem sincere. But:

The referenced post, was, in my humble opinion, a perfect, concise, example of things one might do well to ask themselves, prior to posting on PerlMonks.

The only post you linked to above was how to print only 47..., and it contains precisely nothing of what you claim it does. (Or am I perhaps insane?)

One thing that bothers me is that, when confronted with complaints that you're not being clear, you throw up your hands and walk away, rather than trying to improve your message. Its "intended destination" (audience) is listening. Give us a chance.

[taint]

"The only post you linked to above was how to print only 47..."

Indeed. I'm afraid I had both posts open in different browser tabs, and mistakenly chose the original post ID, not the "re-post" under a different title. It's been corrected. Sorry for the oversite, and thanks for pointing it out.

"One thing that bothers me is that, when confronted with complaints that you're not being clear, you throw up your hands and walk away...""

FALSE
While I do walk away; it is in consideration, and evaluation of what I've just experienced -- evaluation/consideration of what the responses were, evaluation/consideration of how those responses relate to what I'd posted. All in an effort to make my next post, more effective.

Absolutely no dismissal involved.

Thanks for your time, and consideration.

Please vote this post for reapage

--Chris

[Anonymous Monk]

Thank you for another incoherent and irrelevant post. You're really making a difference.

[sundialsvc4]

I could say something.   Almost did.   Didn’t.   Won’t.