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.
I was curious about my progress in the XP game, and found it hard to visualize so I made this little script to produce a report on "XP Efficiency."
It attempts to produce a ranking of Saints by comparing XP to either number of posts made, or to how long the Saint has been a Monk.
I made a couple of efforts at making the data more relevant. For example, I exclude anyone who hasn't been active for a certain time, and anyone who has not made a minimum number of posts. This eliminates the Monks who have accumulated thousands of points but are not here in the community these days, as well as those who do come by regularly but have never posted anything.
I also try to get at meaningful data by deducting half a point for each day as a Monk, since I'm most interested in XP efficiency based on real contributions to the Monastery, i.e. XP for upvotes and for votes cast, not for votes accumulated through simple longevity. (Of course it is impossible to properly account for all factors, e.g. the fact that there were far fewer Monks in the early days, so posts had fewer potential upvotes they could earn.) Would like to hear any suggestions on how to improve this "normalization" of the data. Mostly though the results appear to be in line with what I would have expected so I don't think it's too far off. Deducting a point per day seems to make a small difference, and only for XP/posts.
It's just for fun, but it helps motivate me to excel as a teacher and as a student. You can run the script and force it to include you in the rankings even if you don't make the top 20 (or whatever you limit the search to), so you can see your progress at a glance.
$ perl XP_efficiency.pl
Usage: perl XP_efficiency.pl --sort_by (age|posts)
--sort_by, -s: Rank monks by XP/posts or by XP/age
--limit, -l: Limit results to this many
--order, -o: Sort order (asc|desc)
--recent, -r: Limit to monks seen in the last n wee
--only_include, -i: Skip all monks except this/these one(
--force_include, -f: Include this/these monk(s) even if -l
+ is set
--min_posts, -m: Exclude monks with fewer than this ma
--no_adjust, -n: Don't deduct 0.5 XP for each day of m
--help, -h: Print this help
edit: reduce XP by only 0.5 per day; switched to Time::Piece as DateTime::Format::Strptime has compile problems on Strawberry Perl; switched to format_number() because round() does not provide trailing zeroes; increase XP/Age by two more orders of magnitude, for scale
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
When initially considering a node, the process is: enter consideration text; select checkbox; hit [moderate] button.
Now the Approval Nodelet displays the consideration text; however, the keep/edit/reap/nada radiobuttons are not shown. In order to see the radiobuttons, a page refresh is required: at which point, both consideration text and radiobuttons are displayed (as you'd normally see when landing on a page that has already been considered).
So, the enhancement suggestion is for both consideration text and radiobuttons to be displayed after hitting the [moderate] button.