in reply to Re: Level Proposal
in thread Level Proposal

To find these names offensive is ridiculous. I think, the titles are fine. I have a question though. I recently became a "Hermit," and I am not sure what this means. I clicked on this link https://perlmonks.com/?node=The Hermitage and it's empty. Is this page empty on purpose or by mistake?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Level Proposal
by kcott (Archbishop) on Oct 29, 2022 at 02:16 UTC

    G'day harangzsolt33,

    "I recently became a "Hermit," ..."

    Congratulations on reaching level 10.

    "... and I am not sure what this means."

    I'm guessing you visited "Voting/Experience System", found the "Hermit" link and followed that to "The Hermitage" page. On that basis, you already have some understanding of these levels; there's some more information on the "Levels of Monks" page.

    "I clicked on this link https://perlmonks.com/?node=The Hermitage and it's empty. Is this page empty on purpose or by mistake? "

    Firstly, please don't use absolute URLs. See "What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?" (the All Links Within PerlMonks Should Be Relative section near the bottom) for the reason behind this. A better choice would've been [id://1217124] which renders as an appropriate relative link: "The Hermitage".

    When I followed your posted link (which left me logged off as "Anonymous Monk") I saw:

    You don't have sufficient permission to view this node.

    When I followed the "Hermit" link in "Voting/Experience System" (which left me logged on) I saw:

    Info for Hermits (and above) only

    So, as you're a "Hermit", and I'm "above", we both should have seen the "Info".

    The page isn't empty; but it's clearly incomplete. I suggest you raise this as an issue in "Perl Monks Discussion".

    Update (clarification): My statement of "clearly incomplete" could be wrong. It's possible that the condition for viewing the "Info" is incorrect; or maybe there's some other problem. Regardless, something is definitely wrong and should be fixed.

    — Ken

[reply]
[d/l]
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        G'day Rolf,

        My aim was not to enumerate all of the better choices; but rather, as stated, to provide a (singular) "better choice". The main thrust of that paragraph was absolute vs. relative links.

        Years ago, on a number of occasions, I fell afoul of using [node_name] due to some conflict; e.g. a SoPW page and a Monk's username shared the same "node_name". Since then, I've preferred links which contain a "node_id"; this makes the link unique and I don't have to spend any time checking for, and possibly making adjustments to handle, conflicts.

        I will often use both a "node_id" and a "node_name"; e.g. [id://node_id|node_name]. Examples include:

        • wanting a shorter version of the full name (e.g. [id://1177642|SSCCE]);
        • honouring a Monk's signature name (e.g. [id://708738|Rolf] used above);
        • and so on.

        For some years, replies have included a [id://node_id] text; this makes it very easy (via copy-paste) to generate content like:

        Refer to my [id://some_id|first] and [id://other_id|third] responses.

        There are many ways to provide a link. "What shortcuts can I use for linking to other information?" has details. Here's some examples:

        I wouldn't consider [The Hermitage] to be the "second best choice". I'd rank all of those containing a "node_id" as superior.

        — Ken

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      something is definitely wrong and should be fixed.

      The page used to show some info, but it got removed. So I have added a parenthetical note that there is no information at this time.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion