Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?

by jdporter (Chancellor)
on Jan 16, 2017 at 15:05 UTC ( #1179678=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?
in thread [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?

How about read the document I linked and think carefully about how your post's title falls short.

  • Comment on Re^3: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: [Answered; thanks.] Can this be explained in layman's terms?
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 16, 2017 at 20:33 UTC
    Wasnt tye who said if you complain the title is inadequate you should specify a suggestion for a better one

    basically be constructive

    and you already have power to consider node -- whatever the purpose of your admonishment, if youre going to follow up with %well rtfm link% you shouldn't have bothered with such weak sauce; go complain about spelling

      Yes, in the context of "node consideration", I did. No, it wasn't much about "basically, be constructive" (though, being constructive is certainly also useful in that context). It was particular to a process like node consideration where a request for privileged action is asked for and voted on but can't really be commented on. For such, the request needs to be very specific (and the person making the request needs to be highly convinced that the action is the best action).

      In other situations, it can be potentially beneficial to not offer an answer but to instead offer a suggested direction for finding an answer. But such can easily fail.

      - tye        

      Fair point. But the OP in this case is the "subject matter expert" regarding the content of the post. No one could compose a better node than he. He just didn't expend the effort in this case. It's not that he couldn't make a much better title; he just seemed to have forgotten the importance of doing so.

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
        He just didn't expend the effort in this case. It's not that he couldn't make a much better title; he just seemed to have forgotten the importance of doing so.

        Exactly wrong in every case:

        1. I chose the title very carefully.
        2. I used the one I did because I couldn't think of a better one.
        3. I have not forgotten the importance of a good title; but that does not apply to this question.

          It's a question no one else will ever seek the answer to.

        You just didn't understand the question and for some reason that has put your nose out of joint.


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1179678]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (7)
As of 2022-08-11 15:29 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?