Now that the shady practices of XP-clipping have been brought to light?, I was thinking this could be the right occasion to address the shortcomings—whether perceived or actual—of the feedback and voting mechanisms, that is to say, to mull things over.
I'll start with a few ideas.
What if monks could cast two votes on any node: first strictly during the main voting period, the other available later (but no sooner than one voting period after the first). This would open up the possibilities of correcting mistakes, placing emphasis.
Reminder messages. A node that you've accepted has not been answered in 24 hours. A node you've frontpaged has no answer in 12 hours. (XP demerit elective.)
Preliminary votes ie temporary-votes ie fake-votes ie phantom-votes ie were-votes ie mere-hints. These votes disappear after a month or so. How's it going to work: somebody soft-votes to place your node higher in the thread, now other monks are more likely to vote on it, everyone's happy.
Monk of the Year. Get your pic (statue) on PM during the next year. (Best XP gainer wins the Trophy.)
<node id="218191" title="Re: File Parsing" created="2002-12-06 19:47:1
+4" updated="2016-05-14 12:52:02"><type id="11">
<p>[id://218008] should point you in the right direction.</p></field><
Extending Querying Saints in our Book, the script now includes Monk Levels, which helps when trying to group or order the data. More importantly, (if it indeed can be important) the query now includes XP Ratio, which is calculated by XP / Writeups.
Fabricated numbers of some monks and monks with no writeups are outliers that mess up the numbers. So, the query returns two sets of ratios, with and without exclusions. Perhaps a more complicated rule for outliers can be devised.
As I write this (Monday, 14th March, 2016, at 01:23:32 EDT [15:23 EST — my time]) the last two nodes featured in “Best Nodes of the Day” at Best Nodes are in negative reputation: -1 and -2, the latter for a node which has already been reaped.
I think this reflects poorly on the Monastery; in any case, it is at odds with the behaviour of Worst Nodes, which never shows nodes whose reputation is zero or positive. (Currently, there are only two nodes showing in “Worst Nodes of the Day.”)
Although this situation is rare (the nodes in negative reputation disappeared while I was completing this post!), I think it would be worth fixing.
Perl Poetry has an interesting entry by dmitri, which includes Russian. Eventually, it was approved by Corion, but only after dmitriconsidered his own node asking why. The Consideration is currently at "keep: 2 edit: 1 reap: 2", and the reputation at +10/-10. Also, in Perl Poetry, it says there are 3 replies, yet in Nodes to consider i says there are 4. (I only see 3 replies to the actual node.)
Are foreign languages acceptable on PM? If not, are exceptions made for Perl Poetry, or only when English is the majority, or when it is easily translatable?
I was very surprised to notice that using the vote button would also update your own post if it's the root of the sub thread (even if the sub thread has only your post, you'll find a vote button to test it)
There are some node names that are duplicate, so I'm wondering if I can grab one by name but limited to a particular section. For example, RonW is both a user and a SoPW. For my particular query, I only care about users, so I'm wondering if there is a flag I can pass in to say "give me RonW but limit the search to users" since http://perlmonks.org/node=RonW doesn't quite work.
I am surprised to find my recent posting (originally in CUfP) approved in Meditations. After another read of the descriptions of both sections, it is okay for me, at least since my contribution does not contain code but is only an announcement. What if I had included short test scripts for a naive approach to the outlined problem and another according one for my elaboration?
What I have missed, however, was a notification, so I would not have been afraid at first that my posting might be deleted. In my case, the CUfP section description reads like '... or full-blown webapps', so it was not entirely wrong there.
Would it be too hard for moderators to drop a note to a monk on approving a node in a section different from the monk's choice?
This is a call to the fans of "Perl 6" to please go start your own monastery, or website, at least, and stop cluttering up these halls with posts about your new pastime.
Yes, I know I am free to choose whether to read or not to read whatever article I don't like. But it's not about how I, or any established programmer, feels about "Perl 6" (not even about how it is likely to shrink further the limited opportunities to earn a living practicing a craft I've spent half a lifetime improving).
The problem I have with allowing these "Perl 6" promos here is that it creates confusion for novice programmers who come to the monastery hoping to learn how to program in Perl, and fills their path to knowledge with obstacles, red herrings and irrelevancies.
This is, of course, the most unfortunate thing about "Perl 6" the hobby -- that people who don't know better conflate it with Perl, the working and wildly successful programming language. While there's not much we can do about that overall, we can certainly avoid exacerbating the problem by publishing "Perl News" and "Meditations" about Perl's 'mortal enemy,' as DAGolden recently judged it.
To the "Perl 6" fans I say: stand on your own two feet and quit using the established culture of Perl, and this monastery, to try to popularize your hobby and land-grab your piece of the upcoming "Perl 6" gold rush (*cough*).
Among the defining characteristics of a successful and long-lasting monastic order -- even a liberal one, even one dedicated to the social good -- are cohesiveness and unity of purpose. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as a wise man once said. It's fine for a small band of dissatisfied brethren to go off and develop a new denomination: knock yourselves out, but please don't forget the first half of that process!
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.