Re: Re:x2 Approving inappropriate questions in SoWP

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

Some points I would like to make:

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.
I could have moved on and disregarded it. However, the node also sets an example for other AnonyMonks. A bad example, I think.
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

Comment on Re: Re:x2 Approving inappropriate questions in SoWP

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Approving inappropriate questions in SoWP (care) by tye (Sage) on Nov 30, 2003 at 15:49 UTC
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	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Approving inappropriate questions in SoWP (care)
by tye (Sage) on Nov 30, 2003 at 15:49 UTC

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

[reply]