My sincere thanks to everyone who replied to this node, either here, by email, on irc or the chatterbox. I am now assured that the site has enough perceived value to not die, and that changes need to be made.

ask, links to various sites, including nntp.perl.org and learn.perl.org are now on the site. Thank you for the suggestion :) I'm sure that will prove to be the easiest change to have implemented :)

It seems to be the consensus that scripts need to be reviewed and marked (at the very least) as safe or unsafe. The idea of a Quality Assurance-type incentive is sublime. How then, should commercial scripts be reviewed? It's dubious that that authors will provide a review copy at no charge.

In order to implement a QA program, we will need to have a basic set of standards to which a script must adhere to pass the quality assurance tests. Here's a simple starting point for critique:

• Use strict and warnings (or know/explain why they are not)
• Scripts that work with files on the server must have –T (and useful untaintaing mechanisms)
• Should use CGI.pm
• Should use HERE_DOCS for lengthy text
• Bonus points for clear and consistent style :)
• _____Anything else?_____

As chromatic noted, there definitely appears to be an increasing interest in code review. The hard part about this is what should be charged for a personal code review? Because this was brought up to me previously with a potential reviewer, I've had discussions about what it would cost (and decided at the time that it was too expensive for the average coder offering a free script). We definitely need to steer clear of "get a review and get a QA listing" or something like that. The code review must be separate from the increased exposure that a Quality Assured listing would receive, lest the programmers think they are paying for an improved listing instead of a code review. We also need to tie in the version number of the reviewed code to maintain assurance and write disclaimers, disclaimers, and more disclaimers.

Several, including footpad have recommended that we take the initiative to either write or have written better versions of scripts in various categories. In a perfect world there would be at least one rewritten script for each category (eek!) with the exception of the Remotely Hosted category so that all bases are covered. For this, I would like to defer to other programmers, as it's probable that my "free time" will be spent implementing and maintaining the other improvements.

And last but not least, articles. If anyone has interest in writing or reviewing articles and/or programs, or helping with anything else that was discussed on this thread, please /msg me. I'm not certain what we can offer in terms of payment, but we'll do our best.

One last question, if I may impose a little more... In my opinion, the forums are redundant to PerlMonks and now nntp.perl.org. Should perlguru simply point to those sites instead? It seems to scatter knowledge quite a bit. It's uncertain how throwing 600+ users onto PerlMonks and nntp.perl.org would be received by existing participants, though. Opinions?

Again, thanks to everyone for their input. I look forward to revamping the structure of the site to make it a more useful and safe resource.

Many, many thanks,
Jasmine