It seems your stance on the existence of a rating system has change somewhat from your initial statement.

No. I would support a rating system that had some merit; the existing one which I was unaware of at the time, does not.

If your point is that my suggestion of 1..5 is effectively the same as 5 stars, you are correct. My throw away suggestion for a possible rating system that I "knew would never be implemented", was ill thought through and inadequate; as testified by my analysis of the existing system.

Does that mean I don't think a rating system is a good idea. No.

It means that neither the existing system nor my off-the-cuff suggestion are worthy.

I'm not here to try to convince you of anything.

You've expended a lot of posts not trying to convince me of anything.

I find that more often that not module authors/developers welcome patches/pull requests to fix bugs or otherwise improve software.

That is a completely different subject.

A rating system is -- should be -- to allow users to inform other users of their experiences; and perhaps allow those other users to avoid repeating their mistake of -- for example -- building their design around a module that will ultimately come back to bite them in their arse.

Most of the modules I reject for my own use, that rejection takes a matter of minutes and happens before I even download it. It is a quick, gut driven appraisal to cut down the list; and is entirely inadequate for any kind of review or rating. I'm certainly not going to download and provide patches to correct all the modules I reject from consideration.

The few modules on CPAN that I have -- what I consider -- sound and researched grounds for not just rejecting for my own use; but of sufficient strength and conviction to consider recommending against to others; are frequently modules that many others seem to find to be the best thing since sliced bread.

My patches for Moose, Perlcritic, Readonly, PDL, Bignum, Lingua::Perlegata, Quantum::Superpositions, Acme::*; Modern::Perl, Common::Sense and probably 90% of CPAN on a gut-feel basis of those I've looked at, would be an empty archive.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

In reply to Re^2: A reply. by BrowserUk
in thread Why I won't be contributing to the 'CPAN rating system'; and why you don't want me to. by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.