bronto asked if "bad [modules should] be stopped before they reach CPAN?"

I would think the answer to that is a resounding "no"! While I won't name any, I do agree that there are some pretty awful modules out there. However, the CPAN has two good things going for it. First, there is competition amongst modules for different ways of doing things. Second, it's pretty "hands off", which allows new ideas (even bad ones) to be explored.

What constitutes a bad module? When tachyon posted an RFC about a competitor to CGI.pm, many people seemed to suggest to him that he shouldn't upload his module, but they obviously had not looked at it. It's a great module, serves a need, and is a worthy competitor to the CGI.pm module. Had people just gone with their gut reactions, we may never have seen this module and the CPAN would have been a poorer place because of it.

On the other hand, what about older modules that are "bad"? Some feel that File::Find::Rule and File::Finder are better alternatives to File::Find, but no one is suggesting that File::Find be pulled down (or that Data::Dumper be removed in favor of YAML). Maybe some would argue that Pixie eliminates the need for Class::DBI, Tangram and others. It's certainly easier to use, but it does not mean that those other modules don't have their place.

I don't want to take away the competition of the modules on the CPAN. The current rating system is interesting, but even though many people write to me and tell me that HTML::TokeParser::Simple is much easier to use than HTML::TokeParser, I've yet to be rated on it and I don't if that really matters. Consider that if a replacement module comes along, gets little advertising, perhaps people would still use the original module because it has plenty of "good" reviews. The latter example highlights the problem: there is no substitute for a programmer's judgment. Popularity ain't everything :)