In definition #1, the "of interest" is just as key as "new information" is.
My concern isn't with the section's use varying or topics meandering. It's purely about noise. A quality write-up, even from an author, about something that's actually interesting would be welcome in my eyes.
As a concrete example, since merlyn's article archive is really useful and often cited and he was the one most likely to know where it moved, I'm really glad he told us where to find it. The quality of the resource had already been established, and the news was that it was moving. It reminds me of all the trouble people went through to find another big archive of knowledge recently and put a copy on the Monastery for posterity.
My concern with the slow-moving section being used for self-promotion isn't because I think self-promotion is evil or because I think a module author or article author is necessarily incapable of posting a good article about his or her own work. It's because people tend to be very poor judges of their own work's importance, especially before they get feedback. If young projects few care about start getting regular root node coverage in Perl News, then the nodes I'm looking for in that section become less of the whole. The site and especially that section become less useful to me. Call me Barney Fife, but it's one weed I'd like to nip in the bud.
In reply to Re^4: What exactly counts as "Perl News"? (interesting)
by mr_mischief
in thread What exactly counts as "Perl News"?
by mr_mischief
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |