in reply to Re^5: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

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.
  • Comment on Re^6: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: [OT] How about a 'Related Topics' (Off Topic) Section?
by GotToBTru (Prior) on Jun 08, 2015 at 22:15 UTC

    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]
        ... which is a sign that it is un-necessary ...
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion