Does anyone look for old answers to their questions by doing a title-only search?

Yes, I do. It returns results more quickly (than super-search) and one suspects that it is less heavy on the servers. If that doesn't return any (relevant) results then it is usually worth going through super-search.

I never use any external search engine to search this site.

So, there's one data point.

Why is this post ... deemed completely acceptable

FWIW, I don't think that it is completely acceptable and would prefer to see at least some problem-domain context in the title. However, it does at least suggest that the poster has some code and is looking for an explanation rather than something like PERL CODE which is (a) needlessly shouty, (b) content free and (c) merely hides a gimme.

To me, the difference is that I hold you to somewhat higher standards than other posters on this site.

Also note that in my Google bubble, your post is the third fourth result for "Stirling Numbers".

Also note that in my Google bubble, your post is the third fourth result for "Stirling Numbers".

It isnt in the top five pages for me, of course i know we live in different bubbles, just FYI

I hold you to somewhat higher standards...

So, you hold me to higher standards, but don't credit me with enough respect to believe me when I say that I cannot see any better title for my post.

My post has as much to do with Stirling Numbers as a question about regex has to do with the for loop that happens to be a part of the example code.

In other words; the algorithm description could have been for any algorithm that happened to include the 1 element of that description that I was having trouble with, and sought an alternate opinion on.

---

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". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Why this post ... is deemed completely acceptable;

I don't deem those acceptable. You're right; if I were playing "fair", I would also have jumped on those posts' authors for the same reason.

Whilst this entirely similar post requires godly intervention...

There was no godly intervention. Nothing I said in that thread depended on my role as a god. Even the actions I called for (retitling your OP; moving my subthread) (none of which were done) could have been done by a janitor.

involving implications of stupidity, laziness and more besides

I admit I could have been more genteel in my approach.

Does anyone look for old answers to their questions by doing a title-only search?

Who knows? But there's no doubt that title-only search is the "main" entry point to the site's search capability, being as there's a search box at the top of every page.

As has been pointed out in previous discussions (622140, 1176842, 433723, 1129245, ...), the title field functions, for practical purposes, as a keywords field. Therefore, title search plays an important role as the corresponding keyword search. Of course, how well this scheme works depends entirely on how well node authors treat the title field as a keyword field. This is a serious weakness indeed.

I don't deem those acceptable. You're right; if I were playing "fair", I would also have jumped on those posts' authors for the same reason.

Do you think "jumping" encourages participation or discourages participation on perlmonks?

Where does _pmdiscussion of node titles belong?

There is about two decades ^{(rounding up)} worth of less-than-perfect node titles

This type of "browbeating" and contempt reeks of jealousy

*Envy. And say I said, Your title isn’t hot, why not make it more descriptive? And you reply, It’s perfect, instead of, say, Ok, how about a suggestion? Or, Hmmm, let me see what I can do, and spend 5 minutes thinking about it instead of 10 posts and two threads thrashing about…

There was no godly intervention. Nothing I said in that thread depended on my role as a god.

Are you really claiming that your intervention had nothing to do with either the fact that I was the OP; nor that you, as a god here, have access to privileged information?

If you are, I simply do not believe you. Nor, I suspect, do many others. I firmly believe you sought to use your 'weight', as a god here, to 'put me in my place'. Something, I previously thought entirely unlikely of you.

(A strong motivation for my erstwhile championing of you to be made a god; regardless of whether that had any influence on it happening)

In a nutshell; you both surprised me; and disappointed me. I'm a shit; but you always struck me as a descent guy.

---

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". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

In response to your final sentence. I believe that jdporter is a decent guy, and that you are not a "shit". I've not followed the threads in question, sorry, I don't have time right now, I've not been as active here recently (or anywhere other than work/home life) due to time constraints. However I have been around here for some years, and have communicated with both of you about various things over the years. People can be difficult, interactions which aren't face to face are less straight forward than those which are and volunteers have a limited time to spend doing things. The last point, from personal experience, is a though one. As someone who does much of the grunt work for a voluntary run organisation I often don't have the time to make everything perfect or address every issue with the same level of focus. Perhaps the same rings true for the gods/admins of this site.

Are you really claiming that your intervention ...

Ok, I misunderstood what you mean by "intervention". Apparently simply posting a comment containing a link to a site faq, without further commentary, is "intervention".

had nothing to do with either the fact that I was the OP;

Actually it did. I'm sure it seems like I was picking on you; but the fact is that I don't have time to read posts by every random monk that comes along, but will take the time to read posts by the likes of you, since you tend to post good stuff, content-wise. This being a perfect example; the content of your post was really, really cool. I probably would have taken a stab and answering it except that other folks already had.

nor that you, as a god here, have access to privileged information?

Absolutely not, no. No privileged information was wanted, nor needed, nor used, at least by me, throughout this whole kerfuffle. I would have responded exactly as I did even if I were still only in the SiteDocClan and/or pmdev. In fact, if anything, I was acting in accordance with my long history in SDC. Pointing people to relevant faqs is something I do, sometimes. Even so, it's something any monk could do. Even Anonymous Monk can do such things, and has, from time to time. No special information is necessary.

I firmly believe you sought to use your 'weight', as a god here, to 'put me in my place'.

Believe whatever you must. It's completely untrue. I have no desire to put anyone in their place. That's not how I roll. I'm a big believer in letting people dig their own reputational graves. (And if that's what I've done to myself here, then, hey. I guess I'll have to live with it.)

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

... or Site specific google search.

You get more like what you expect if you don't put a comma in place of the dot in the domain name: Site specific google search.