It is not approved as of 1300 GMT 30/11. It does have answers but has not been approved by anyone - check out the approval nodelet.

Reasons that nodes like this may get approved are:

1. because they do have answers.
2. to make the node appear in SOPW which stops (A)monks from posting the question over and over again bacause they do not see it appear in SOPW.
3. just because aka it seemed like a good idea at the time to whoever ticked the box.

The odd off topic post does little to detract from the sites focus.

I just approved it. I fully agree that it's off-topic, but since a number of valid answers have now been given, it becomes pointless to reap it.

Someone really should have put it up for consideration right away, in which case it could have been reaped before any answers appear. But once the answers start to roll in, I believe it's too late.

On the other hand, I must take exception to liz putting Gaim to read from a file using Perl? up for consideration on the flimsiest of reasons, that the author "expects answer by email". So what? Worse, a number of people agreed and now the node is zapped.

This latter node was far more Perl-centric, albeit somewhat "do my work for me". But we've seen worse. If there was a gaim expert in the house, they could have earnt some XP by posting a snippet that shows us all how to do it. For instance, a quick search turns up Gaim Magic 8 Ball; maybe that's all the person needs to get started, that, and to suggest they track down a copy of the Llama book.

Just because the poster asks for answers to be sent by e-mail, doesn't mean you have to pay heed. If it so offends you, move on, there's plenty more stuff to answer, otherwise just post your reply in the thread. The OP will most probably come back to check on the answers anyway, (especially when they notice they don't get any email on the subject) so there's no harm done.

Here was a chance to inspire one more person in the world to learn about Perl, and we just blew him off. How arrogant, how sad. (No I'm not singling out Liz, other people caused this to happen too).

I just approved it. [...] it becomes pointless to reap it.

The choices are not limited to "approve or reap". Reap nodes that do damage. Approve nodes that are appropriate. If the node is neither, just let it sit there unapproved and unreaped.

                - tye

I'll try to answer this without feeling personally "attacked".

Some points I would like to make:

1. First of all, if the author had not been an AnonyMonk, I would not have considered the node. But if someone has no experience in Perl, and just posts a very unclear node in the Monastery, one for which a quick search turns up a possible solution (as you point out), then I'd say that that AnonyMonk has not done his/her homework. And then to top it off by asking for a reply by email, that just did it for me.
2. I could have moved on and disregarded it. However, the node also sets an example for other AnonyMonks. A bad example, I think.
3. If the node deletion blew off one person from Perl, that's too bad. If it took just that to blow this person of, I don't think it wouldn't have taken much. If that AnonyMonk comes back to check up on the node, (s)he will find it was deleted and find my name and a reason associated with it. That may ring a bell with that AnonyMonk or not. Maybe that AnonyMonk will register for the next question, maybe that AnonyMonk will never come back. Who knows.

Personally, I am surprised the node got deleted (that quickly). In the past I have considered nodes without voting on it myself. I just wanted to get the attention of other monks. In this case I admit I have voted for deletion, because of the reasons I mentioned above.

Liz

But once the answers start to roll in, I believe it's too late.

It's not too late, just don't approve the node (why whould it be a sopw if it's explicitly not seeking perl wisdom?).

Thanks tachyon for that explanation. And I guess I have to agree with #1, especially--I did provide an answer (not the answer (s)he was looking for). I feel a bit for these folks because I often get stuck with other web-related language issues, and am tempted to ask the monks--the answers are also so quick in coming, and very insightful. But in keeping with the charter of PM, we all need to keep the topics somehow related to Perl.

—Brad
"A little yeast leavens the whole dough."

I think the proctice of titling OT nodes OT: Apache config woes or similar lets Monks answer if they feel the urge or ignore the node if the don't do OT. I have asked a few and answered quite a lot of OT CGI nodes. I don't think PM is in any way diminished by this.....

cheers

tachyon

It has been approved, and by the same person who approved the root of this thread. how odd.

Personally, I can't recall ever having approved a node. Regardless of my perceived XP, I don't feel comfortable deciding on what is appropriate for the Monastery (yet ;-).

You can always consider a node for deletion (if you have enough privileges), if you think it's not worthy of being in the Monastery. If enough other monks agree with you, the node will get deleted.

Liz

At this time, this particular node is under consideration for OT. I am thinking this is even not OT.

There is a very subtle difference here. Most of the OT posts are "positive" OT, they are OT because they might cover topics at a level higher than particular language, or might have a coverage wider than particular language. But the thought and the basic principles provided in lots of those OT's are wonderful.

But in this particular case, the post simply has a narrow coverage that has nothing to do with Perl.

Luckily we rarely see this kind of posts.

As a sidenote, the node in question probably won't get deleted because it has replies. It got me thinking that maybe a node should have to be approved before anyone can reply to it. On the other hand, those who want to post their few choice words to nodes that don't offer much would probably just approve it quickly so they could force their reply in. Back to the first hand, it would mean that a monk with the power of approval would have to accept the original post before anyone can pitch a reply in.

I dunno ;)