http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=941664


in reply to Put some of the posting guidelines directly above the posting form:

++ for a proposal that might accomplish its goal. Certainly we see far too many posts with inadquate information.

An earlier proposal that Monks be encouraged to WITHHOLD approval of incomplete nodes -- SOPW in particular -- drew favorable response but fell short of general adoption.

Noted, too, that it's obviously not part of the mindset of at least some (and one might even argue, "many") newcomers, to read the existing notes re markup, and to ignore the note warning that a badly formatted preview probably means they failed to follow the markup suggestions.

IMO, your proposal's major shortcoming is that it doesn't provide a mechanism to cope with those who will blindly click any radio button or check any box to accomplish their goal... be that installing software without reading a license agreement, or posting a question here without ensuring that it contains the required information.

Still, I would be interested in seeing a more detailed sketch of your proposal; specifically, what questions do you suggest as essential and how would you implement them without creating impediments for those who routinely post clear, complete questions. (It occurs to me that redirecting all AnonyMonk and noobie (defined as those with XP less than some nn to be established) attempts to seek wisdom through an intermediate page with guidelines and checkboxes might have merit... but it might also have a major downside, in that it might drive novices away) and could be bypassed with the same mechanism for experienced as the preview page.

One last thing... and far more than a minor quibble: the mindset reflected in the last para of the op does NOT reflect my understanding of the Monastery's guiding principal: we're here to learn and to help others learn ... not to "cod(e) a solution." Sure, sometimes offering a solution is the "right" answer, but too often we see a SOPW with responses that provide the needed "how to fish" information, followed by a "here's a fish" solution ... and a 'thank you' for the solution, followed by a new question already answered in the 'how to fish' nodes. IOW, /methinks the OP in those cases picked the easy, job-done-by-someone-else answer and ignored those requiring effort, such as reading the references provided.