(Ovid - what's wrong with my carburator?)

That's an interesting idea and I like it. My only concern would be how quickly that section would fill up. Perhaps only archive the posts for about a month or so? Otherwise, I could easily see a "fix-all" section that people start swamping.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of my occasionally being able to post a JavaScript or "what's wrong with my car's carburator?" (just kidding) question. However, I'd be concerned if people started viewing this as a permanent resource, as opposed to a one-shot "can you help me" sort of thing.

Cheers,
Ovid

Update: Ooh! Looks like a nice compromise that vroom's listed. Plus, it sounds like this may even be a reality some day...

Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just go the the link and check out our stats.

Comment on (Ovid - what's wrong with my carburator?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: (Ovid - what's wrong with my carburator?) by vroom (His Eminence) on Oct 06, 2000 at 20:56 UTC
Perhaps one solution to this would be that only logged in users could see or access this section... provided it ever happens. That way people who are actively involved in Perl Monks can help each other out but people will only find this site if they're looking for a good Perl resource. I'd also be interested in seeing how this section might be organized. vroom \| Tim Vroom \| vroom@cs.hope.edu	[reply]
RE: RE: (Ovid - what's wrong with my carburator?) by Shendal (Hermit) on Oct 06, 2000 at 23:28 UTC
I think a good way to pick out the "actively involved" perl monks would be to use your XP system. Perhaps initiates and novices would not be able to see the section at all, acolytes and scribes could read but not post, and monks and up can post. I think this will encourage people to log in and contribute to the perl knowledge base before diverging into different interests. Besides, it looks like we're getting quite a number of monks and above around here. Cheers, Shendal	[reply]
Grr - Arg (Sounds like an opportunity to discuss Buffy) by frankus (Priest) on Oct 06, 2000 at 21:35 UTC
I agree with the concern of how quickly this would fill? In some ways, isn't that what the function of the Chatterbox? -- Brother Frankus.	[reply]
RE: Grr - Arg (Sounds like a n opportunity to discuss Buffy) by Fastolfe (Vicar) on Oct 06, 2000 at 22:33 UTC
Chatterbox is far too transient. I find that even if I go check e-mail for a few minutes and come back, I've missed entire conversations. Chatterbox also tends to be ultra-OT at times, whereas this section will hopefully be merely OT. :)	[reply]