Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: PM Leveling Guide.

by chacham (Prior)
on Mar 06, 2015 at 02:54 UTC ( #1118967=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: PM Leveling Guide.
in thread PM Leveling Guide.

I don't know if it counts as an accusation when i did not name the user. Sundial is an excellent example because he gets voted down so often. I'm not sure the regulars see his posts objectively anymore.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: PM Leveling Guide.
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Mar 06, 2015 at 05:47 UTC

    His posts are upvoted more often than they deserve based on nothing more than geniality, hand-waving, and fluffy technical pronouncements, not the reverse. I think monks see more objectively now having lost the benefit of the subjective doubt over time and repeated proofs.

      I think you are both right. Many have come to more accurately perceive at least a general lack of specificity. A few have started to demonstrate a zealous assumption of profound incorrectness that I have seen miss the mark on a few occasions.

      - tye        

        Yes, Iíll buy that. Itís a matter of street cred though and thatís fair. Iíll upvote something purely technical from BrowserUk or ikegami or you or eyepopslikeamosquito or a lot of other monks even if I donít fully understand it because I like voting and I have confidence based on past performance, andóandóthese are monks who when confronted with a mistake or corrected on a code interpretation will accept it, mark it / fix it, and absorb the lesson and never push the issue to the fore on the same terms. Itís hard to ever be upset with anyone genuinely in the process of moving the ball, any ball, forward. I vote on social content too and that part is as subjective as I wanna be. Did I mention ď:PĒ?

        A few have started to demonstrate a zealous assumption of profound incorrectness ...

        Assuming the cap fits; I've picked apart and highlighted the flaws, fallacies, misunderstandings and outright falsehoods from enough of his posts going back several years; that I've arrived at the point of "assuming profound incorrectness" on certain subjects -- threading, memory, sorting, random numbers, syntax; to sum up: programming -- but it doesn't stop me reading what he writes, carefully, before either downvoting or denouncing it. Or both.

        But, with the monastery's approval -- which basically means yours -- I'll return every downvote I ever took from him, from my own tally, on one condition: he posts a single, complete, non-trivial, working Perl(*) program that he has written. How hard could it be?

        Update: And just to keep things honest; it has to be an appropriate response to a new SoPW.

        (*)I'd say, any language, but let's keep it focused.


        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". I'm with torvalds on this
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
Re^6: PM Leveling Guide.
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 06, 2015 at 03:50 UTC

    I'm not sure the regulars see his posts objectively anymore.

    For the sake of argument lets say they do not -- does it make a difference? I guess that it does not

    IIRC I've seen maybe 5 semi-on-point responses that appear to have helped the OP in some way ... out of the last 500

    Thats a horrible ration, and I don't even vote

      You're so cute when you post "anonymously." :)

        Iím curious who you think that monk is really? Me? Iím much too vain and vested in my belief that Iím the funniest monk there is to forgo <abbr title="If Iranians relished Coke"/> on the IIRC. And Iím too obsessive about proper typography: ... is typed Ö I also said I wouldnít pull anymore punches on this topic: Re^2: Porting (old) code to something else. So, who is it? BUk doesnít post anonymously and isnít shy at all in any caseÖ most of the regulars anons always do since the great plain text password massacre.

        Yes, I am cute, others agree

        See january Re^3: How to determine if an array contains an undef value?, Re: Which WebApp framework should I use? ... last 150 nodes, there might be a few more adding up to 5 ... not just me-too-nodes, and then you're up to jul2014 where he says you're right to Your Mother... about 400 nodes ...

        lots of his nodes promote ignore voting feelings, but lots of his nodes promote down vote feelings ... its a rare node that promotes upvote feeling ... I say "feeling" for lack of a better word because I don't vote

        Its real easy to see some voting regular consider the distraction level of his responses for a particular OP, and erring on the side of caution and downvoting ... not every node is worth the effort to refute, so a quick downvote and off to read the next newest node

        So yeah, when the regulars like me visit every day ... they're doing pretty well in the objectively category

        Hello chacham, I remember Perl(Hello World) :)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1118967]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others exploiting the Monastery: (4)
As of 2019-12-15 03:01 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?