Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description?

by i5513 (Monk)
on Apr 08, 2012 at 20:16 UTC ( #964026=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Dear Monks,

While I was browsing the monastery, I found my last comment (basically a reply which says, "please search in internet before posting") with negative reputation.

My first impression was "waw! what did I wrong??"

Now reading "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description, I understand it. Description does not invite to do any research before posting the question, so some monks sees my reply with wrong eyes (or maybe there are other issues which I possibly missed?)

What I'm proposing here is updating the description. I can understand that search engine wasn't very powerful when Perlmonks started. But now it is another history.

So I think monastery could replace this part of the description (of course if other monks agree and there is a consensus):

Original:

/If you have a question on how to do something in Perl/ ...
Modified (or somethink like it):

$& ,and you did not find the reply to your question in a fast search in Internet, perldoc, or supersearch ...

What do you think about?

Thank you!

Comment on RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description?
Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Apr 08, 2012 at 20:45 UTC
    What do you think about?

    I think it took me no longer to type an answer that OPs question, than it took you to type your unhelpful response.

    And less time than you took to come up with this post, which I fully anticipate will be equally unpopular here.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

    The start of some sanity?

      Hi BrowserUk,

      Why do you think my response was unhelpful ? I really missed something ...

      Thanks

      PD: I would not want read questions which could be solved by searching their titles in google before that they are published in perlmonks.

        I would not want read questions which could be solved by searching their titles in google before that they are published in perlmonks.

        Noone is forcing you to do so.

        Every Perl question it is possible to ask could probably be answered by searching the internet; and there are plenty of other places on the internet where the OP of that question could have gone to ask, only to be told that it was too simple for the incumbents there to bother helping him.

        This place has historically been more tolerant of beginners and their questions, recognising that it is hard to know where to look, or even frame the question, if you don't really know what you are looking for.

        If this place is to move to a stance where you are the arbiter of what is an interesting or legitimate question -- where RTFM or LetMeGoogleThatForYou is the norm -- then this place becomes just like all those other places, and ceases to serve any purpose.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        The start of some sanity?

Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by Old_Gray_Bear (Bishop) on Apr 08, 2012 at 21:02 UTC
    Um -- probably a non-starter, I am afraid.

    OPs have never been known for reading the instructions about mark-up (code-tags anyone?), so I doubt that adding a couple of lines pointing them at sources that would require work on their part are going to have much effect....

    ----
    I Go Back to Sleep, Now.

    OGB

Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 09, 2012 at 00:25 UTC
Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Apr 09, 2012 at 14:28 UTC

    If it takes no more effort to give an answer, than it does to go all PerlMonks on them, I do the former.

    I my 10 years here, there have only been maybe half a dozen "perceptual newbies", that wanted everything spoon fed to them. And a couple of those were simply people who weren't capable of more no matter how hard they tried. That didn't (and doesn't) stop one of them from actually achieving some quite amazing things, he just does it all the hard way.

    And there doesn't seem any reason to presume a person's "guilt" in this, the truly lazy stand out like sore thumbs very quickly indeed.

    To paraphrase; if you've never had a day when you couldn't see the wood for the trees; if you've never felt the total frustration of not being able to find what you need to know, despite knowing it must be there somewhere; then by all means be the first one to throw a RTFM/LMGTFY/XYprob/WHYT into the thread.

    Just don't be surprised if I (or others) take the counter tack.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

    The start of some sanity?

Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by halfcountplus (Hermit) on Apr 09, 2012 at 14:50 UTC

    I don't think your suggestion here is a bad one, to which I'd add a link to the classic: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    UNLESS this just encourages people to do what you did initially, which was too flippant. Especially considering there'd already been a series of (helpful) replies made hours earlier. Pretty obviously, the OP was very new to programming, and didn't recognize the issue with the relative path, so s/he needed to be guided through some things anyway.

    I do agree that google is a programmer's best friend and that people should be encouraged to learn to use it effectively. However, if all the search results just led to forum posts where someone is told LMGTFY -- heh-heh. What a joke that could turn out to be.

Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by tangent (Deacon) on Apr 09, 2012 at 15:51 UTC
    I would not want read questions which could be solved by searching their titles in google before that they are published in perlmonks.
    I do not want to read answers which make the OP feel ignorant or stupid. Personally I think a much better strategy is to simply not answer a question that you deem lazy, and if a question is left entirely unanswered the OP will surely get the message. Answering with sharp comments also wastes the time of other Monks (unless those comments are witty or humourous).

    And easily answered questions can provide a good practice space for those Monks who are just beginning to (try) answer questions. As BrowserUK points out, tolerance of the unwary beginner is what sets this place apart.

      I'm sorry again.Not was my intention to be intolerant or to post a sarcastic response. Only wanted to point to internet before asking.

      I apologize to everyone who felt ignorant or stupid, or was disturb, or wasted his time by my comment.

        Sorry i5513, I wasn't actually referring to you at all - there are far worse examples than your answer to that post.
      "if a question is left entirely unanswered the OP will surely get the message."
      1. "...will surely...?" Really? I suspect, more likely, the OP will advertize the node in the Chatterbox.
      2. "...left entirely unanswered...? And the last time that happened was when?
      3. "...tolerance of the unwary beginner is what sets this place apart" Seems to me that's neither desirable nor factually true. c.f. StackOverflow and (far worse) those dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill sites that purport to provide reliable answers to questions (on almost any subject you care to name). The questions are bad and what good answers appear are -- at best -- difficult to distinguish from the dreck.

      One other observation about the "unwary beginner:" If you want to master an avocation, you study the masters... at their sufferance; if you want to succeed at a game, you learn the rules; and if you want to post a question here that's not a reflection of your laziness, read the PerlMonks FAQ. Yes, I know some won't bother... but giving them a precis or a reference has to be better than a deafening silence.

        if you want to succeed at a game, you learn the rules;

        Your rules?

        "...tolerance of the unwary beginner is what sets this place apart" Seems to me that's neither desirable nor factually true. c.f. StackOverflow...
        Not sure what you mean here, that Perlmonks should not be tolerant and, in fact, is not tolerant? StackOverflow is like a fairground attraction where newbies are set up like ducks to be shot down by the local bullies.
        giving them a precis or a reference has to be better than a deafening silence
        Yes, but that is not the comparison I was making - silence is better than abuse.
Re: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by jdporter (Canon) on Apr 09, 2012 at 16:29 UTC

    Be aware that any kind of "RTFM" suggestion, including "google it yourself", is likely to come across as snarky, if not downright nasty, so be really sure that's what you intend for the OP before you do it.

    I don't think that having one "RTFM" type answer among the several that a querent receives is necessarily a bad thing. In some sense, it's all part of the XY problem domain: an OP getting a spectrum of responses may be better than getting only a number of nearly identical responses.

    I think it's usually better to reply with a link to something like How do I post a question effectively?, which has rather comprehensive advice, including the admonition to do an appropriate amount of research before posting a question.

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://964026]
Front-paged by Arunbear
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-09-02 19:55 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite cookbook is:










    Results (29 votes), past polls