in reply to Re: Improve Perl's marketing position by making Perlmonks more discoverable for automated "popularity contests"
in thread Improve Perl's marketing position by making Perlmonks more discoverable for automated "popularity contests"

A way to justify this (at least to me) is that it's an obviously true statement. This could just be seen as a clarification, almost like going towards Semantic Web -- using the correct tags/keywords.

That is not just a justification, that is entirely my intent. :)


Comment on Re^2: Improve Perl's marketing position by making Perlmonks more discoverable for automated "popularity contests"
Re^3: Improve Perl's marketing position by making Perlmonks more discoverable for automated "popularity contests"
by igelkott (Curate) on Mar 16, 2013 at 23:54 UTC
    justification

    "Justification" as a way to overcome doubts. Would be more fair to say "a different way to look at this" with the implication that the positive outweighs the negative.

      I was trying to express that in my mind there were ZERO doubts about this. A flawed, but stable algorithm is hurting us. We can either complain about it, or figure out what we can do to make the algorithm do the right thing. Once that is understood there should not be a doubt in any person's mind. :)