Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

by beech (Parson)
on May 03, 2016 at 23:20 UTC ( #1162137=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
in thread unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

seems weirdly odd and hostile/unwelcoming to me, why purposeful discourage participation?

if you can do the the consideration and voting, you could just as easy copy/post the code from the link

  • Comment on Re^2: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by Your Mother (Bishop) on May 03, 2016 at 23:57 UTC

    A link offsite to any kind of paste-bin style code is guaranteed to be broken eventually and probably soon. The link was future garbage. It pointed to 25 lines of code that could have been placed here easily. Also, anonymonks get no benefit of the doubt with this kind of thing. If an even slightly well known monk had posted the link, it would not have been reaped.

      A link offsite to any kind of paste-bin style code is guaranteed to be broken eventually and probably soon. The link was future garbage. It pointed to 25 lines of code that could have been placed here easily. Also, anonymonks get no benefit of the doubt with this kind of thing. If an even slightly well known monk had posted the link, it would not have been reaped.

      FWIW, its more than a pastebin, faq says it runs the code and the code will live forever ... website has been live since 2009

      Its even listed in sitefaqlet Miscellaneous Off-site Resources since 2013

      I'm reminded of IRC Considered Harmful

      Cheers

        Be fair. The age of a domain registration has no correlation with the number of links that 200 or 404. This is in line with my complaints about IRC. If the code was meant to survive it should have gone on PM, which I see you have done. This raises a side-issue not mentioned. You broke the law by posting it. Since there is no license associated with the code itís © all rights reserved; in the US at least. I understand this is a silly and irrelevant distinction but itís worth noting that only the author has the legal right to publish the code until it has a CC or OSI or similar license and the author chose to not publish it on PM.

        I didnít vote to reap it, by the way, and wouldnít. I vote to keep things, like misspellings in titles, against the general tide because PM isnít a reference work and I think premature normalization is a mistake.

Re^3: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by jdporter (Canon) on May 04, 2016 at 17:40 UTC
    why purposeful discourage participation?

    A bare link to unexplained offsite code is hardly more participatory than actual spam.

    if you can do the the consideration and voting, you could just as easy copy/post the code from the link

    I'm sorry, but now you're just being ridiculous. It would be at least as easy for the OP to c&p the code, and the onus is entirely on the OP to do so. Maybe, if there were already significant discussion around the code, i might, as a moderator, be inclined to suggest to the OP that he c&p the code rather than link to it offsite. But even that tenuous standard is very far from met in a case like this.

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

      A bare link to unexplained offsite code is hardly more participatory than actual spam.

      At least its not anti-participatory, like deleting/disappearing content , in this case actual code answer to question asked

      I'm sorry, but now you're just being ridiculous. It would be at least as easy for the OP to c&p the code, and the onus is entirely on the OP to do so. Maybe, if there were already significant discussion around the code, i might, as a moderator, be inclined to suggest to the OP that he c&p the code rather than link to it offsite. But even that tenuous standard is very far from met in a case like this.

      :)

      How would an anonymous poster know about this unpublished not-a-rule (What is consideration?)? That his answer would be deleted/disappeared unless he C&P the code?

      All that happens is the guy who asked the question doesn't get to see the answer

      Destroying content because it doesn't meet your high standards of .... not answering the question, that's whats ridiculous, placing higher level of onus on actual content contributors rather than content destroyers -- thats anti-learning/anti-discussion/anti-perlmonks

      :) I avoid moderation when I'm having have a bad hair day

        At least its not anti-participatory, like deleting/disappearing content

        Now you're confusing participation with moderation & administration. What the moderators do is kind of "meta" relative to the main purpose of the site.

        How would an anonymous poster know about ...

        The same way we all learned these things. And the fact that this anonymous poster chose to "participate" in a way that is not generally acceptable to the community is prima facie evidence that they haven't bothered to learn how this community works. Which is why I feel less bad about supporting the reap call than I might.

        Destroying content ...

        We didn't destroy content. The content was off site, and it's still there. Presumably.

        placing higher level of onus on actual content contributors rather than content destroyers

        Exactly. The participants bear the entire onus for content contribution (with a few fringe exceptions, notably the Categorized Questions and Answers section).

        The moderators, whom you call "content destroyers", have a different responsibility: to keep this place clean of crap, such as unexplained links to unexplained offsite content.

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

        Reaping doesn't destroy it's just limiting readability for readers without login ... like bots.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
        Je suis Charlie!

Re^3: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by dsheroh (Prior) on May 04, 2016 at 07:07 UTC
    We don't discourage useful participation. However, a blind link accompanied by a cryptic one-liner generally fails to qualify as "useful".
      We don't discourage useful participation. However, a blind link accompanied by a cryptic one-liner generally fails to qualify as "useful"

      Why discourage participation at all? Esp code?

      Very odd assessment of the "useful"

        Esp code?

        No code was reaped . Code would not have been reaped. An anonymous link to an anonymous source was reaped. Again, I personally wouldn't have done it but I don't see the decision as inexplicable or unfair and I certainly don't want this kind of participation to become normal here.

        Odd assessment of "useful"? Not at all! The reaped post was essentially equivalent to posting:
        My latest work: http://bit.ly/3jh598a7f437
        It said absolutely nothing of substance about what was behind the link. And, even if it had given a good description of the link's content, how am I to know that the description is honest and accurate rather than going to a spam/scam/phishing page or one which will attempt to deliver malware to my browser?

        So, no, I stand by my assessment of such posts as "not useful" and see nothing odd about that position. Doubly so when you're posting to a site with clearly-established support for posting code directly to the site itself and an equally-clear tradition of it being the norm to do so.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1162137]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others imbibing at the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-03-31 08:04 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    To "Disagree to disagree" means to:









    Results (180 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?