in reply to Re^3: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
in thread unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

We don't discourage useful participation. However, a blind link accompanied by a cryptic one-liner generally fails to qualify as "useful"

Why discourage participation at all? Esp code?

Very odd assessment of the "useful"

  • Comment on Re^4: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on May 04, 2016 at 13:46 UTC
    Esp code?

    No code was reaped . Code would not have been reaped. An anonymous link to an anonymous source was reaped. Again, I personally wouldn't have done it but I don't see the decision as inexplicable or unfair and I certainly don't want this kind of participation to become normal here.

[reply]
Re^5: unreaping , reversing reaped, resurrecting a node
by dsheroh (Monsignor) on May 05, 2016 at 09:39 UTC
    Odd assessment of "useful"? Not at all! The reaped post was essentially equivalent to posting:
    My latest work: http://bit.ly/3jh598a7f437
    It said absolutely nothing of substance about what was behind the link. And, even if it had given a good description of the link's content, how am I to know that the description is honest and accurate rather than going to a spam/scam/phishing page or one which will attempt to deliver malware to my browser?

    So, no, I stand by my assessment of such posts as "not useful" and see nothing odd about that position. Doubly so when you're posting to a site with clearly-established support for posting code directly to the site itself and an equally-clear tradition of it being the norm to do so.

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion