Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister

Re^3: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Apr 09, 2012 at 17:17 UTC ( #964163=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re^2: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
in thread RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description?

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

Your rules?

  • Comment on Re^3: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?
by ww (Archbishop) on Apr 09, 2012 at 17:28 UTC

      I don't see anything in JD's post that suggests we need rules for this:

      I don't think that having one "RTFM" type answer among the several that a querent receives is necessarily a bad thing.

      As usual, just a very fair minded: one amongst others does no harm.

      But the moment you make a rule that the OP has to prove due diligence before they may expect anything other than a RTFM/LMGTFY/WHYT reponse, you open the flood gates to the race to see who can post it first.

      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?

        And if you don't regard the formal guidance in How do I post a question effectively? (the link in jdporter's post) or the explanations provided in such readily accessible documents as PerlMonks FAQ and Guide to the Monastery as tantamount to "rules" or "directions" (maybe I should have included "bake a cake" in my list), what's to [limit|restrict|discourage|deprecate]+ a flood of ill-considered questions and lazy 'gimme's that overwhelms the site's value?

        As a matter of fact (and yes, this is highly subjective), it seems to me that as the inclination to provide guidance and correction here (the practice of urging that factual questions reflect some effort on OPs part) has waned, the prevalance of such questions has increased. I suggest a quick scan of older OP's --those, say, in the 400K-600K range (2004-2007) -- and comparison with those in the 900Ks may lead others to a similar conclusion.

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://964163]
and all is quiet...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others lurking in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2018-01-19 09:54 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    How did you see in the new year?

    Results (217 votes). Check out past polls.