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

I am surprised the node got deleted (that quickly). In the past I have considered nodes without voting on it myself.

Please don't consider nodes just because you want to see if anyone else thinks it should be reaped. Don't consider a node unless you feel strongly that something should be done (and then specify exactly what you think should be done and why in the reason).

A node shouldn't get reaped unless at least one person feels strongly that it must be reaped, not because one person wasn't sure whether it should be reaped and then 5 people thought "sure, that doesn't seem very appropriate".

I'd also like to encourage people to take care when voting on considerations. If you aren't sure or don't have the time to look carefully at the node, the replies, the other node that is the claimed duplicate (if appropriate), etc. then you should probably let others vote on that node rather than "help out" or "do your part" by voting without careful consideration.

Update: I've unreaped the node because one person seemed strongly opposed to it, the considerer was surprised by it, and the reason given gives a bad example.

                - tye

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?).

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