Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

Re^6: Bad reasoning?

by BrowserUk (Patriarch)
on Jan 25, 2017 at 04:36 UTC ( [id://1180267]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^5: Bad reasoning?
in thread Bad reasoning?

I don't think that particular question is even controversial

Sorry Jd, but -- and this is the first time in this saga that I am going to express my opinion, undiluted; out of respect for your work here -- that is crap!

Your premise is that my asked-and-answered node, is somehow detrimental to this place, because another looking for the same answer that I was, would not be able to find my node via a title-only search.

The things that are wrong with that premise:

  • Everything!

    But that's too ... loose; generic; dismissive. So read on.

  • If a new petitioner comes here to ask exactly the same question, and fails to find my thread and it's 'potted' answer, what happens?

    He asks his question, phrased in his own way, and either ...

    1. Get's referred to my thread by someone who understood the question; and/or provided an answer; or
    2. Get's the current inhabitant's of this site -- at that future time -- best attempts at an answer.

    This place loses nothing by option 2; but loses participation by option 1.

    A (this) websites only measure of success, relevance or viability, is participation. If, this place ever succeeds in answering every possible question by simple search, it should be taken off line; because Google's cache and The WayBack Machine have that covered.

  • Despite your premise that "But there's no doubt that title-only search is the "main" entry point to the site's search capability, being as there's a search box at the top of every page."; nobody finds this place without a search engine; and then types (say) regex or regex problem or learning regexinto the search bar above and finds the solution to their problem.

    NO ONE! Given the power of Google (Bing or duckduckgo or even super search) to effectively narrow the search results; no one with the brights to find this place, would use the search box more than twice.

    And the second time would only be to prove -- to themselves or others -- how useless it was in comparison to the alternatives.

  • "That faq" is outdated, obtuse, and opaque to the point of useless.

    It supposes a level of understanding entirely unreasonable of the beginner.

    And is patronizing to the level of insulting to the experienced.

    It serves no one other than the 'post-something-meaningless-and-useless--like a link to the faq -- and-applaud-yourself-as-the-XP-rolls-up' crowd.

    That's not you. I know that's not you. And that's what set the hairs on the back of my neck to attention with your first post.

  • You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of my question.

    Had you understood that, you might have stood some chance of offering an alternative title for my post that wasn't entirely misleading.

    I believe it would have been a slim chance; as, the result of your belated, non-useful, generic and pointless, 'intervention' in my asked-and-answered thread; I've re-visited the possiblity of there being a better title; and I've come up short.

    And I do understand my purpose in asking my question.

    So for me the idea that you could come up with something better; let alone 'appropriate and better'; is nothing more than a sick joke.

Bottom line: I don't believe that you were attempting to improve this site; you were simply 'having a pop' at me. And you failed. Dismally.

And each and every repetition of your belated, mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy defense of your action, further entrenches my take on your purpose. And not just with me.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Bad reasoning?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jan 25, 2017 at 19:33 UTC

    You are entirely mistaken in my motives, and you've demonstrated no willingness to be moved. To the extent that your mistaking of my motives is my own fault, I do regret.

    Given that you are one of the most, if not the most, valuable contributors to the site, content-wise, I don't want to be responsible for fostering what you may feel as a "hostile" environment, and so I don't want to continue arguing about this. Like I said before: believe what you must. Let's just get on with business.

    PS- I am grateful for your support of my work on the site; it has not gone unnoticed. I will continue to do what I can, time permitting.

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

      I have a final question, to which I do not require an answer.

      When was the last time you referred a petitioner to that faq?

      (Ancillary adjunct: How many times in your 15 years here have referred a post to that faq?)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1180267]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-03-29 07:43 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found