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"

On the down-side, this all feels a bit dirty somehow. Hard to explain really but it's like a scam to drum up popularity. It's not like a lie but why should we need to advertise (besides those selfish reasons above)?

I don't really see the dirty aspect, myself. If we were putting that statement on non-Perl pages, then I would consider it dirty. But all we're really doing is improving the accuracy of their poor method of tracking language statistics. Yes, it's dumb that we need to do this kind of thing, but not dirty.

Somewhat separately, what's wrong with advertising? I like Perl. I like using it, and I like when other people use it. The bigger and healthier the Perl community is, the more useful Perl is. As long as we're being honest, and not misleading people, there's nothing wrong with advertising in my mind.

I don't feel I need any justification to encourage people to use a programming language that I believe is incredibly useful. If someone hadn't encouraged me to play with Perl many years ago, I may have ended up stuck using a less awesome language.

Christopher Cashell


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 23:30 UTC
    don't see the dirty aspect

    "Dirty" doesn't summarize the proposal to me. I'm definitely in favor of increasing Perl's exposure/popularity and am thankful that someone "advertised" to me.

    But, to explain my hesitation, this almost sounds like begging for attention. I'd rather let people appreciate the language for what it is rather than adjusting pages to look better to spiders. Sounds silly/naive but that's what I meant.

      Fair enough.

      I think we're both looking at this from very similar perspectives, just with a slightly different view of where it falls on the sliding scale of pragmatism vs righteousness.

      Christopher Cashell
        different view of where it falls on the sliding scale of pragmatism vs righteousness.
        I have to applaud how very well you put that.