in reply to [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Dear Monks,

I'm answering myself, but I think now would be the time to add an example of what a 'Related Topics' section could be used for, IMHO.

Last week, I investigated a client suggestion for better packing of a data base by sorting the input file first. Sounds great, but after sorting a 10 million file on Linux, I didn't get the expected results. After further investigation, I found that Perl and the Linux "sort" command were not compatible with the default behavior. I immediately suspected Perl, but after a lot of searching and testing, I pleasantly found that I was wrong - Perl was correct.

The default behavior of the Linux "sort" command doesn't sort in ASCII order. My first impulse was to make the monks on PM aware, but then I thought about when I did this in the past, and got comments about "off-topic" and ignored the impulse.

I don't consider this section for newbies, since they don't care anyway. It's only after being around here for a while, that you care about not angering the good responders( monks ). Maybe this section should only be available by turning it on in your account. Those decisions are for others, but I think it's time for PM to consider this section.

Thanks for listening.

Regards...Ed

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

  • Comment on Re: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 08, 2015 at 19:15 UTC
[reply]
      and subsequently full of reasons why we don't need it.

      Full of one reason: the gods -- which currently translates to 'two monks with an exclusive veto' -- don't want to be bothered with it.

      But if you want it then go write and implement it yourself instead of asking others to do your work for you.

      What a crock. Tell a guy that has no access to the code; to "implement it yourself". (That argument sounds familiar: Hi Mono!)

      Is it really so hard? Could not one of the relatively recently removed sections -- Code Catacombs; Craft; Snippet etc. -- simply be re-purposed?

      Inner Scriptorium managed to materialise from nowhere back in September 2004; so it is possible. It didn't seem to require a huge effort; and there were no major disruptions at the time.

      So this isn't about implementation effort or willing volunteers; or valuable time of those empowered to do it:

      Its simply about the willingness (or lack thereof) to recognise what the users want. Users, who are the life blood, and only meaningful reason for this place' continued existence.

      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". I'm with torvalds on this
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
        what the users want

        As if "the users" are unanimous.

        Some users have got it in their heads that an OT section will somehow solve a significant problem PerlMonks has. I think those users are mistaken.

        If someone could, please, clearly elaborate the following:

        1. What problems have afflicted PerlMonks historically by the lack of an OT section and(or) the presence of OT posts in other sections?
        2. How will the existence of an OT section mitigate these problems?
        3. What are the potential negative consequences of having an OT section?
        4. By what metrics do the gains (#2) outweigh the negatives (#3)?
        5. Please take care adequately to address the distinction between experiences of the site from the poster's perspective and from the readers' perspective, in each of the above; and similarly, anonymous vs logged-in users where appropriate.

        Many thanks.

        (I reserve the right to add more points to be addressed. ;-)

        I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
[reply]

      The very first suggestion given to you was I think there should be a new Section on PerlMonks for Jobs/Modules/Quizzes/Perl6/Newbies/OffTopic/etc.. Did you not read it? It is full of examples of what "a 'Related Topics' section could be used for" and subsequently full of reasons why we don't need it. But if you want it then go write and implement it yourself instead of asking others to do your work for you.

      Are you really suggesting somebody go implement their own perlmonks as a way to improve perlmonks?

      Creating a new sections is something that needs no writing/implementation, its already implemented, its as trivial as creating a new question or answering a new question, click the mouse a few times, type a little (title, nodetype, groups), and you're done

      Given you know so little about how perlmonks works, I'm pretty sure you don't know what we need

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion