I --'ed nearly every single reply you made in this thread, and I'm going to explain why.

Well - dragonchild - if it makes you feel better, please do so. I personally will refrain from - - ing your nodes, because this would be CHILDish no mather whether one is a manchild or a dragonchild.

Both you and Fatvamp are completely missing the point of CPAN. CPAN isn't, nor should it be, a moderated list of modules. SourceForge, which is built on a very similar model, isn't moderated, either. I don't hear people bitching about it ...

Well - first off, this is Perlmonks, my opinion about content of SF is quite similar to CPAN. The major difference is, that SF offers you several indices to blend out "unmature" projects. But SF should not be an issue here.

I think this thread brought up the essence/gist of the matter up very well. Actually this is what I intended to say, but was somehow unprecise. For this unprecision, I do well deserve the - - es. The gist - with which I completedly agree is:

The problem of CPAN isn't having both good and bad modules, but the difficulty to separate the wheat from the chaff (I think adrianh mentioned it first.

Furthermore, I don't hear you or Fatvamp offering to take on the effort of moderating the submissions. If you were willing...

I wasn't aware of the CPAN ratings system until I wrote that first node. My bad. But you may have realized, that I have submitted some reviews already and will of course continue with that. I also offered Ask B. to edit the bad revisions, but that will need some changes in the code.

Until you are willing to do what Jarrko et al have done and donate 20-40 hours per week of your own time, you don't have the right to get on that soapbox and bitch up a storm.

I agree. Unfortunatedly you are quite misinformed about the amount of contributions (money, time and code) I'm responsible for. (No - not just my time, but also the time of developers I am responsible for.) And therefore I think I HAVE the right to "bitch up a storm".

So, your perfect CPAN would have only the best of the best ... which means it won't fulfill most needs.

It is probably my failure for not being that precise, although I believe there are always two sides when it comes to a misunderstanding (sender and receiver - assuming the channel is ok). I'd be fully satisfied with a CPAN that would allow me to blend out modules whose "reputation" is below a certain mark. Yes, CPAN does that somehow a little bit in a way...

Bye
 PetaMem     All Perl:   MT, NLP, NLU

In reply to Re^5: The quantity vs. quality lesson by PetaMem
in thread The quantity vs. quality lesson by PetaMem

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.