in reply to Re^4: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

1. What problems have afflicted PerlMonks historically by the lack of an OT section and(or) the presence of OT posts in other sections?

Past experience, we are told, did not indicate a need for an OT section. Some perceive that it would help at present and into the future.

2. How will the existence of an OT section mitigate these problems?

Gains would include a place to discuss related technology $_, but not in a Perl + $_ context, and without cluttering up SoPW/CUFP/Meditations. Also, a potential gain in participation from persons who otherwise might not have participated, because their interests were not Perl-focused.

3. What are the potential negative consequences of having an OT section?

None that I can imagine.

4. By what metrics do the gains (#2) outweigh the negatives (#3)?

See above.

5. Please take care adequately to address the distinction between experiences of the site from the poster's perspective and from the readers' perspective.

I don't know what you mean by point 5. Both poster and reader benefit from the clarity that a separate section would create.

Dum Spiro Spero
  • Comment on Re^5: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 08, 2015 at 21:41 UTC
    Both poster and reader benefit from the clarity that a separate section would create.

    (This is an example of what I so feared, a complete failure to clearly elaborate.) What clarity? The only thing resembling clarity you allude to is a (predicted) avoidance of "cluttering up SoPW/CUFP/Meditations". How does this (predicted) "clarity" aid the poster? I can see how it could aid the readers, but even that you leave unsupported by argument/evidence.

    You say you can't imagine any potential negative consequences. This tells me you haven't really thought about it in any depth. Seriously... Imagine you're a consultant trying to justify an expenditure of €1,000,000 to your client. Make the case, and make it well!

    Past experience, we are told, did not indicate a need for an OT section. Some perceive that it would help at present and into the future

    What I hear you saying is that it ain't broke.

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

      Clarity - here is where those posts go. Here is where to find them.

      Is it a million pound change? I don't have access to the site innards to know. I'm sure it's non-trivial. From what I gather, patching the engine is not a task for the squeamish. But we aren't talking new functionality. It's been suggested that an existing section could be repurposed. Is there more to that than s/Something/Something Else/g? Probably. I would be very willing to help, if asked.

      It ain't broke .. but that doesn't mean can't be improved. And that's my opinion. I think others would differ, would say it IS broke .. but I can't make their case for them.

      Dum Spiro Spero
[reply]
        Is it a million-pound change?

        No, but that's not the point. I'm asking (I can't demand, obviously) that those who want to see the change make a really clear, complete, and compelling justification. Vague handwaving about "clarity", and potentially fixing a problem some believe we might have in the future.... That's not it. That's not going to persuade your client to drop a mil on your "improvement".

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

        ...I'm sure it's non-trivial...

        Yes it is trival, it has been trivial at least since 2004, a long time ago

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion