No such thing as a small change | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
You suggest that discussions tend to die, but the tendency to die may be a symptom of the exact overload of New Stuff coming in on a minute by minute basis (well, maybe not that fast).
Let me clarify my thoughts. To my mind : Either you want to take par to a 'living' discussions, involving several people, where you'll get a lot of answers, make the things evolve by giving your point of view. Either you want to get the info from a 'dead' (only read 'not so active anymore') and in this case the "I've check this" button and Supersearching with dates would just be fine. Why does a discussion have to end? I just wanted to say that discussion have a very higher activity at the beginning, with a lot of people talking a lot of different point of view, and a chance to help to make things better... In short: When I talk about 'dead' discussion I don't mean uninteresting nor finished/concluded but rather not active anymore. while making your rounds to the nodes of interest would allow you to "glimpse into the future" (which is really the present (even though technically, if you're viewing a node, it was written in the past)). That's where I disagree this "future" has great chances to not even be a 'present' but a 'past'. Remember that I'm talking about thread activity, not interest... 3 days after the beginning most of the threads are deads even the most interesting ones. (I find jewels in old post, but no active ones...) P.S. how do you know that tilly gave the best answer? How could you even imagine that it could be different ? ;-) "Only Bad Coders Badly Code In Perl" (OBC2IP) In reply to Re: Re: Re: Newest Nodes- FREEZE!
by arhuman
|
|