(Ovid - what's wrong with my carburator?)
by Ovid (Cardinal) on Oct 06, 2000 at 20:48 UTC
|
That's an interesting idea and I like it. My only concern would be how quickly that section would fill up. Perhaps only archive the posts for about a month or so? Otherwise, I could easily see a "fix-all" section that people start swamping.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of my occasionally being able to post a JavaScript or "what's wrong with my car's carburator?" (just kidding) question. However, I'd be concerned if people started viewing this as a permanent resource, as opposed to a one-shot "can you help me" sort of thing.
Cheers,
Ovid
Update: Ooh! Looks like a nice compromise that vroom's listed. Plus, it sounds like this may even be a reality some day...
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just go the the link and check out our stats. | [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
|
I think a good way to pick out the "actively involved" perl monks would be to use your XP system. Perhaps initiates and novices would not be able to see the section at all, acolytes and scribes could read but not post, and monks and up can post. I think this will encourage people to log in and contribute to the perl knowledge base before diverging into different interests.
Besides, it looks like we're getting quite a number of monks and above around here.
Cheers,
Shendal
| [reply] |
|
I agree with the concern of how quickly this would fill? In some ways, isn't that what the function of the Chatterbox?
--
Brother Frankus. | [reply] |
|
Chatterbox is far too transient. I find that even if I go check e-mail for a few minutes and come back, I've missed entire conversations. Chatterbox also tends to be ultra-OT at times, whereas this section will hopefully be merely OT. :)
| [reply] |
RE (tilly) 1: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by tilly (Archbishop) on Oct 09, 2000 at 01:23 UTC
|
Having been part of another site that did something like
this, I have to admit to mixed feelings.
On the one hand we have a large pool of competent people
who probably do have other interests we share away from
Perl. Should the new section come about I would bet top
dollar that it will be popular. More than that, if there
is a section in it with a name like "Open forum" it will
be the most popular of all.
On the other hand when you get away from Perl, what people
will want to talk about are the topics which they care
about most. Politics. Religion. Microsoft. But the very
fact that people care means that their feelings are on the
line and people will get upset.
I have seen this scenario before. A lot of interesting
stuff will be said. It will be popular. People will get
upset and leave. | [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by KM (Priest) on Oct 06, 2000 at 20:32 UTC
|
I think this is a good idea. There would simply need to be an OT section with subsections (like the Code Catacombs section). Of course, if you know a specific person will know an answer, currently, you could just leave them a msg in t he chatterbox.
Cheers,
KM | [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by extremely (Priest) on Oct 07, 2000 at 04:07 UTC
|
| [reply] |
(jcwren) RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by jcwren (Prior) on Oct 07, 2000 at 07:00 UTC
|
I'm not so sure about having departments/sections for things. I'd like to believe that we can use intelligent subject lines, and refrain from changing 'My carburator problems' to 'Natalie Portman rocks my intake manifold'.
I agree that new nodes should NOT appear in the site Newest Nodes, but should perhaps have it's own newest nodes page.
I would imagine that this section wouldn't have anywhere near the traffic that the rest of the site does (with the possible exception of the FAQ, which no one seems to read...), so rather than imposing a large programming overhead on vroom or possibly chromatic (who has been doing some site mods), we could (attempt to) manage it ourselves by avoiding pointless postings, and by using useful subject lines.
Along the content lines, a lot of people keep mentioning IT only type subjects. I'd like to say it could be anything. Perhaps we could create a specialties page that we all list our areas of expertise (I've rebuilt a few engines in my time, punched out a lot .308 rounds, hacked micro controllers, and know a bit about houseboat maintainence). So, for the moment, let's not say it's only computing related topics.
--Chris
e-mail jcwren | [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by acid06 (Friar) on Oct 07, 2000 at 01:12 UTC
|
It's a great idea. I know that you can ask off topic questions (or whatever) in the chatterbox... however only the monks who are currently logged in see it, and it only lasts for a very short period.
Just to end my post... IMHO PerlMonks is not only just a Perl Resource, it's a community too! | [reply] |
(redmist) RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by redmist (Deacon) on Oct 07, 2000 at 02:12 UTC
|
I love this idea. I certainly agree with the idea that only Monks and above should be able to view and post. Perhaps, in order to maintain the Perl-centricity of it all, there should be a mandatory Perl solution (ie Q: "What's wrong with my car's carburator?", A: "What you need to do is write a scipt with such and such code and update the cars firmware, and it should work fine.") ;)
I think PM is super, and would love to learn about microcontrollers and other wonderful subjects from the same people who provide me with wisdom on Perl related issues.
redmist
redmist.dyndns.org
email::redmist
| [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by 2501 (Pilgrim) on Oct 07, 2000 at 06:48 UTC
|
I think AgentM is on the right track with having specific catagories and not just a "!perl" (interesting as it is to see what hits the top of his list for areas of concern :P:P)
I would be very interested in swapping computer knowledge in some areas, but not in others, and having to weed through a bunch of stuff I really don't want to read in order to posts that do interest me would more then likely just cause me to skip the whole section.
how about this:
Networking
Hacking (as in 'I am trying to write a perl intrepeter for my TI-85', not Cracking. A place for hobby code)
Hardware
Unix/Linux
These might be a good place to start. They are all still indirectly perl related and it will allow the community to monitor the affects of non-perl related sections into the web site. If those go well, THEN I would suggest branching out for weird areas like "Ovid's Garage" and "Used Firearms Classifieds".
BTW, I would also like to suggest that if non-perl groupings appear that we have a "!perl Newest Nodes" to keep site content seperate to a degree to allow for easier access to perl information.
Thanks,
2501
P.S. If you haven't guessed already, I thought the !Perl term was fantastic:P
| [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by TStanley (Canon) on Oct 07, 2000 at 07:01 UTC
|
I think this is a great idea. Each of us has special knowledge in some area relating to IT, whether it is programming, system administration, or anything else. There is a great deal of information floating around in the form of the monks who populate this site, and we should take advantage of it.
TStanley
There can be only one! | [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by royalanjr (Chaplain) on Oct 07, 2000 at 01:04 UTC
|
Sounds like a very good idea!
Roy Alan
| [reply] |
RE: perlmonks.org: More than just a Perl resource?
by AgentM (Curate) on Oct 07, 2000 at 05:17 UTC
|
Perhaps subsections could include: (by platform, etc.)
- Linux
- UNIX98/POSIX
- BSD/SYSV
- Mac 9/X/MacPerl specifics
- EE
- Women
- Job
- Why Windows is wonderful.
- Cars
- completely irrelevant and irreverant
There should probably be more but I definitely agree that the web space should be limited for these portals. This is, after all, PerlMonks.ORG. (did anyone ever try reading that out loud? perlmonks orgy?)
| [reply] |
|
AgentM: "Why Windows is wonderful."
Don't forget, "Why the earth is flat"... ;-)
Update: Heheh... just a friendly joke, you know...
you don't have to vote me down. *ducks flying
fruit*
| [reply] |
|
Subsections would be good eventually, but create them as you go. High traffic topics will evolve naturally. If you spread into a bunch of artificial categories, topics would lack the critical mass necessary to promote discussion.
| [reply] |