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

Re^2: Anonymous Monk?

by flexvault (Monsignor)
on Jan 18, 2011 at 17:59 UTC ( #882940=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Anonymous Monk?
in thread Anonymous Monk?

Names aren't as important in monasteries as you seem to think they are.

If there was not a hierarchy in the monastery, then this statement would be correct.

But it exists, and it's a way for a poster to understand the authenticity and legitimacy of the comments.

When I see certain names on posts, I immediately check out the thread, since I will most likely learn something or get more information about perl. When I see 'Anonymous Monk', I usually skip over the comments. Why waste time on someone who isn't proud enough of his post/work/comments to stand behind it. Many times, I have wasted time on code from 'Anonymous Monk' which doesn't compile or just doesn't work correctly.

Personally, I don't consider this a game, I consider this a very interesting and creative way to improve my perl skills. I'm too math oriented, so I know that I would never have been creative enough to develop www.perlmonks.org, but I do enjoy using the site to grow my perl skills.

Hat's off to the monks!

Thank you

"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Anonymous Monk?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 18, 2011 at 18:14 UTC
    There seems to me to be an interesting contradiction here.

    You say you judge the quality of the words by the speaker, because you learn better that way. However highly ranked people, including myself, claim that we pay more attention to what is said than who is saying it. In fact I learned something useful from Anonymous Monk today.

    Why do you refuse to learn from stated examples from people you claim to try to be learning from?

      Hello tilly

      I did have problems with my terminology, and previewed and changed my comments many times before hitting the create button.

      But, you are an example of what I was trying to describe. You are here since 2000, and have shown by your rank, that perl is important to you, and I'm sure I will mentally add you to my list of 'valued' monks. You also know that I registered for perlmonks.org in 2008.

      What you don't know, is that I rejected the whole concept as foolish and that I wrote in my log ... "Anon Monks ruin the whole thing". (NOTE: The only reason I looked at perlmonks.org, was that my google queries would take me to the site).

      Fast forward to 2010, and I had a problem I just couldn't find an answer to. After about a week of searching/coding/testing, I resorted to trying perlmonks.org with my question. But this time, something magical happened, a monk (BrowserUk) not only gave me an answer, but gave a 1-line perl script that showed what was going on inside perl. And within 1-hour of my question.

      Now that was something fantastic.

      He helped me again a couple weeks ago, when I used his script to find what allocation of a array does. I work on lots of large files, and couldn't understand why reading a file into perl and then splitting it was so much faster that reading a line at a time. I used his script, and the initial array was 8 elements allocated, but then added 1 element at a time. So if you read a 1_000_000 line file, you called allocate approximately 999_993 (+/-). Implementing this, the loop reading the file improved by 34%.

      So I'm back looking at perlmonks.org!

      Thank you

      "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

        Let me summarize the key points that I see. Your opinion was that anonymous monk ruined the whole idea of Perlmonks. Yet Perlmonks is here, clearly works, and has anonymous monks. Furthermore some of the people who have been part of making it work have expressed the opinion that the existence of anonymous monk is part of what makes it work.

        My question for you is this. You have come to accept that your original take on Perlmonks was wrong. Do you care to challenge your beliefs about why it works?

Re^3: Anonymous Monk?
by JavaFan (Canon) on Jan 18, 2011 at 20:53 UTC
    But it exists, and it's a way for a poster to understand the authenticity and legitimacy of the comments.
    I understand that.

    And I claim that "anonymous monk" isn't your problem. It seems you only want to read comments from people who already "have made a name". First time posters, or anyone who hasn't posted enough so their names sticks in your memory have as much authenticity and legitimacy as anonymous monks.

    Which actually seem to make you a newbie basher.

    And guess what. *Anyone* here, even people with thousands of posts started off as someone with no track record.

    If you want to improve your perl skills, judge posts by content. Because even people with well known names, and thousands of posts do from time to time post crap. (Even those who in general post sensible things). And there have been some excellent Anonymous Monk posts.

    There's one thing though. There are some people who posts a lot that still manage the time to make long rambling posts. Anonymous Monk usually keeps his posts short.

    Also, forcing people to slap names on their posts doesn't create authenticity or legitimacy. Only if you can force them to come back repeatedly, and keep using said name, you have a chance they make a name for themselves. But if they post anonymously because they want to be anonymous, then can use a different name each and every time.

      I'm starting to get confused as to where you stand on this JavaFan other than Anonymous Monk and a Guest Monk are virtually the same thing.

      Actually I'll correct myself. I don't think it's you or anyone else in particular. I think it's that this thread seems to be unraveling in a number of different directions. (I'm sure I'm partly to blame) I may be the only one but I wish this could get back into focus. Whatever that focus was in the first place.

      I think the first (possibly the most important) question everyone should ask is:
        Is PerlMonks better for having Anonymous Monk?

      I find that question hard to answer especially after this thread.


      "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." Don Quixote
        Is PerlMonks better for having Anonymous Monk?

        I think that is not one of the right questions.

        There are plenty of well-justified explanations around as to why anonymous posting is an important feature of the site. Anonymous posting is never going completely away unless things change rather drastically here. So, your proposed question seems quite useless to me.

        Whether Anonymous Monk has been a net positive or net negative influence over the history of the site so far, that doesn't actually determine what should be done. It informs whether "completely get rid of Anonymous Monk" would likely be a net improvement. And even that somewhat side-steps things. What replaces AnonyMonk? What can people read anonymously? Can they post without doing standard registration but without using Anonymous Monk?

        Now, I believe that there are lots of potential changes to anonymous access that are worth considering (because there are indeed ways that Anonymous Monk contributes to problems and/or could discourage problems). Indeed, I have pushed for and/or implemented changes to anonymous access over the years.

        So questions that I find worth asking are things like: Should we post the source IP of anonymous postings? To what benefit? To what detriment? Should we encourage or require attributed posting by "guests"? To what benefit? To what detriment? Should we publish the hashed first 3 octets of IPs for all postings? Why and why not?

        But even better than asking such questions, it would be useful for those with the interest to seriously contemplate a set of improvements and figure out what benefits and problems would result and make and justify a very well thought-out proposal.

        Trying to ask questions may help inform some future proposal put together by some careful designer. But the discussion will likely be mostly useless until there is a concrete proposal to focus it.

        - tye        

        Is PerlMonks better for having Anonymous Monk?
        Yes. Without a doubt.

      And I claim that "anonymous monk" isn't your problem . . . Which actually seem to make you a newbie basher.

      I don't think my problem with "anonymous monk" has anything to do with "newbie". In fact, I have to correct myself("a newbie"), I do read the original post of a thread ( "anonymous monk" or not ). Allowing a "newbie" or "anonymous monk" or "what-ever" to ask a legitimate question is a valuable part of this forum.

      My problem is with the one-liners that cause the discussion to heat up. If you doubt this, just go back and read only the "anonymous monk" posts for this thread. Do you really think that those posts would warm the hearts of a "newbie"?

      "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

        If you doubt this, just go back and read only the "anonymous monk" posts for this thread.
        So, you wouldn't be annoyed if the same posts had a name (which may never ever be used again, or ever used before) attached to them?

        Or is it the content you don't like?

Re^3: Anonymous Monk?
by Fox (Pilgrim) on Jan 19, 2011 at 10:49 UTC
    You seems to assume that monks with a "name" build here are bound to give good answers, nothing wrong with that, actually chances are you are right most of the times.

    The thing is, you can't apply this same line of thought to the Anonymous Monk(s), for the exactly reason that anyone can post at any time, on any thread, you can't assume the node will be bad, nor that it will be good, chances will be against you anyway. The better you can do is, leave the chances aside, and evaluate the node yourself, bonus points if you manage to read the node as if it was written by "certain names".

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://882940]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (8)
As of 2021-05-06 07:17 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Perl 7 will be out ...





    Results (70 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?