Twice in the past 10 days, I've been skulking about the Monastery for an hour or more in a time frame spanning my local midnight -- ie, at more or less the time the vote fairy normally replaces my un-used votes with a fresh batch.

In both cases, I awakened the next morning to discover that she'd passed me by: I still had whatever (few) votes I'd had left just before my local midnight, but no fresh ones (and we all know that finding only stale votes in our stockings is less satisfactory even than week-old trout). So, some possible surmises include:

• Perhaps the VF has adopted the "Santa Claus rule;" that 'good children should be tucked snug in their beds when she vists' or...
• perhaps I've offended her or...
• maybe Vroom gave her a holiday.

But I'm inclined to suspect a glitch beyond my competence to find (never mind to suggest a fix) -- perhaps in allocateVotes.pl which is "Permission denied; tough beans" to me and thus, possibly, to all devs.

Have others experienced this? Lately? Or -- better yet -- is there a diagnosis or Rx hidden somewhere in the twisty passages?

Update: 2009-02-15 ca 1730 GMT: THIS VERSION IS NO LONGER CURRENT.

FOR A CURRENT VERSION The current version -- improved by the many folk who've replied or /msged about this -- has been posted to How do I post a question effectively?. Since we anticipate additional improvements, please check that and /msg SDC. Thanks

How to ask a question effectively

This is a little long. But, please, at least scan it. It's our best effort to help you get help. These are not "rules for the sake of rules" but, rather, guidelines to help you help us to help you.

So here we go (and eventually, we'll even get around to "Where to ask?"):

First and foremost, think through your question.

• Can you explain it clearly to yourself?
• Can you explain it to others?
• What example data would help them understand the issue?
• What's not happening that you think should happen, or happening that you think should not (or don't understand)?

Write it down -- preferably in your editor on your machine.

Look away for a moment; perhaps mull the question over some more.

Edit for clarity and precision (leet-speek iz rong on both cnts!). Spelling and grammar count (but we try hard to understand if English is not your native tongue).

Repeat as necessary. It's often said and often true that explaining a problem to a rubber ducky or to a teddy bear will show you a solution.

Show us that you've made an effort.

• Show your code (at least the problematic snippet)
• Explain in detail what you get (include sample output, error messages and warnings, for example).
• Tell us how your output means your script isn't working.

If you do, it's likely someone will provide pointers in the right direction.

Now you're getting close to a good question.

But before you post it, take another step. Include (inside <code>...</code> or <c>...</c> tags) a minimal, compilable script that demonstrates your problem and sample data (input).

Use strict and warnings. If you don't, and your sample code throws errors or warnings, NodeReaper (or some solicitous Monasterian) will throw that in your face.
Failure to use strict and warnings is a red flag; it tells us you didn't use the available tools ("aka, make an effort").
On the other hand, using these pragmas may show you how to solve your problem before you post. For example, they'll catch variables where you make a typo between assignment and use. Failure to use them is like ice-climbing without a safety line.

Again, use code tags without fail or the Monks' outrage may lead them to conclude, prayerfully, of course, that you need penance. In fact, failure to use at least minimal markup will almost certainly persuade some of the Reverend Brothers and Sisters to point you to the sackcloth and ashes in the third sub-dungeon. ( See Markup in the Monastery for quick reference or Perl Monks Approved HTML tags for an exhaustive list of what's allowed.) And be sure to close your tags; the special dialect of html used here is unforgiving about failure to close some tags.

Preview. See if what the preview screen shows looks like what you intended. And if it doesn't, fix your markup, and preview again. ONLY when your note "looks right" should the "Create" button tempt you.

Select an informative title. "Need help ASAP" doesn't cut it. Neither does the name of any Perl function.
For example, if you're having problems dereferencing an array in a hash, SOPW won't accept a one word title like "%hashref"; %hashref problems" isn't fully descriptive; but "Why doesn't this deref the @arrays in my %hasref?" is probably OK.

OK, but what was that 'or not' business about?

Ah, I'm glad you asked.

Laziness is one of the virtues admired by Perl programmers -- in themselves or when demonstrated with competence and verve! It is not admired when demonstrated by a Seeker of Perl Wisdom who is too lazy to adhere to the hints above; who posts ambiguous questions; who fails to read the docs (see perldoc perldoc for an overview of the knowledge that's at your fingertips; or who inconveniences thousands of electrons to ask redundant questions.

But I never asked that question before!

No, but surely you don't think you're the first to come to the mountaintop seeking that wisdom, do you?

Super_Search is your friend. Use it! Or Google PM. Big G is quite good at finding nodes here that will help you, if you ask with reasonable search terms.

But I'm new at this; I don't know what search terms to use!

Ah, that plaint is sometimes justified, but have you RTFMed How to RTFM? Did you look at the plethora of information available via perldoc or at perldoc.perl.org? The Tutorials may also speed your search for enlightenment.

And a few scattershot points:

• Log in before you post unless you want it to be anonymous (and remember that that anonymonk can't update a node nor get notifications of replies)
• Don't ever wipe the original content of any node you've written, even if you've solved your problem; you're clarifying your issue; or you realize you just made a "D'oh!" Mark the changed/new content with the word "Update." Don't delete! Doing so is likely to make replies you've received unintelligble to future readers. Use <strike> ... </strike> if you must.
• This is PerlMonks. Stay on topic. This is not the place to ask about bugs in your javascript (or the other 'j' language) nor how to learn write a formula in a spreadsheet, even though there are many Monks knowledgeable in such disciplines.
• Be patient. And don't tout your node in the CB.
• Don't post real email addresses, usernames, or passwords
• Own up to homework. (We may help with homework when you show some effort, but you're not learning anything and we're not helping if we do it for you.)
• Understand that the Monastery is NOT a code-machine. Don't ask for a handrolled script to suit your needs. That costs $$$$.
• RTFM -- the various FAQs, guidance and tutorials on our standards, as well as those on Perl.

More to come... Suggestions to ww.

But all I wanted to know is "where to post my question?"

There's a form at the bottom of the Seekers of Perl Wisdom page (but first, please go back to the top and actually read the suggestions).

Wow! How can I thank you enough?

Adhere to these suggestions... and pass them on to others.

What would you add/remove/change? (   Given the date of posting, note that valentines and brickbats are equally welcome. :-)   )

Update: 20080318 Faqlet created; Markup in the Monastery
Significant Update: 20080314 1400 GMT

As of 18 Mar 08, ww's scratchpad Markup in the Monastery has the latest version of this proposal (for a faqlet, tut or whatever on PM markup). The comments from other Monks remain well worth reading, but please address defects in the version in my pad via msg to SiteDocClan. The <readmore> contains an earlier version for comparison.

The content below the rule is offered for review, critiques, improvement and possible future adoption as a faqlet to augment the information in Perl Monks Approved HTML tags.

Among the comments sought are those relating to accuracy, readability (including the phrasing and markup), PM doctrine and necessity.

<readmore> begins here and continues through the rest of this node. (If you're looking at this where the readmore tags are ineffective, apologies for failing to find a way to spare you the original. :-)

Many of our Reverend Monks use   </br>   in the text elements of their posts. And, verily, this is a practice worshipfully commended in the secular world, outside our gates. Some, even use   < /br>.

But neither is PM approved.

Thus, their adherence to a liturgy used elsewhere practice results -- for those of us who have syntax checking enabled (at Display Settings|HTML Related|HTML error reporting level; something highly recommended here in the Monastery) -- in a light gray rendering of that tag, rather than the intended newline.

Though I was honored (one could argue, "UNjustifiably") with Dev membership, my fu remains insufficient to be comfortable tackling this... nor even to know whether this behavior might best be emended by adding </br> and/or < /br> to the litany of blessed tags by automating correction of this improper tag (see below).

Wiser Bretheren (and Sisteren), pray counsel me!
      (... or maybe even implement this?)

update: Struck laudatory language and original suggestion above, in light of corrections below. Since it appears to be a common usage, even here, however, please see my (second, now) third reply below. I seek not to have us sanction the "incorrect," but rather to make those nodes which include this (OK, now I know it's a "heinous sin") tag to what seems to me the un-necessary detriment of readability for those who practice more care.

Update2: Aaargh. I'm tempted to consider this for re-titling, as my errors -- despite edits -- and the title seem to have skewed this discussion in a direction not relevant to my current, amended, suggestion/query/reqest.

For discussion because I may not have thought this notion through well yet but it occured when I spotted Perl = reg Exp - Cut info in middle soon after it was posted and before it was approved or answered. It's not the worst question ever, but can stand as an example for this muttering....

• show no effort (code)
• and provide insufficient info upon which to craft a relevant answer

For this to be effective, it seems to me that we would also need to adopt these practices as norms.

1. immediately consider such nodes with an explanation that the consideration is intended to warn others off premature approval and to prod the OP for a better question
2. ...and message the OP with the usual suggestions... including links to How do I post a question effectively? and other relevant subjects?

*1: Clearly, this won't work for bad postings by anomymonks, but it might inspire some newly ordained brethern and sistern and thus make their entry into the community easier and more effective.

While using personal css would be one way to deal with the legibility of some elements of the Monastery, TWWTM (They Who Work The Magic © 2005) may find this a suggestion worthy of implementing in the (presumed) site css.

Background: In response to a SOPW ( Capitalize First Letter of Each Word ), a monk posted:

prompting this:

Re^2: Regular Expression by suaveant

Heh... these fonts are bad. When I first read this I saw slash-one dollar-one, and was trying to figure out what the heck you were smoking. Then realized \l was slash-ell... characters aren't exaclty the same but that are really close to it. :)

          - Ant

Humbly, oh devs, gods, and fellow monks: I endorse the implicit recommendation in suaveant's observation: It would indeed be nice to cause PM to default to a typeface that facilitates distinguishing an ell from a one; a curly brace from a paren, and so on. Even a stylesheet that merely specs 'sans-serif' might help (though it raises other potential sources of confusion). A slightly more ambitious changes might spec a common console font, per the $ENV info provided by the visitor's browser.
(update, 1 July) ... or using one of the other mechanisms below. or, of course, not, if the notion that this is 'big brother-ish prevails... (</update>