Re: Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- DISREGARD POST

Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- DISREGARD POST

I personally believe that under different circumstances I would have sent to you a /msg, but I'm posting here for reference: instead of modifying the Subject like that, you can consider your own node for reaping if you feel it would better be deleted. If you just found the solution to your problem, instead, then perhaps "SOLVED" would be a better "tag", possibly with an update to the node explaining what the solution was.

--
If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.

Comment on Re: Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- DISREGARD POST Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- (reap post?) by tye (Sage) on Dec 03, 2007 at 19:48 UTC
No, we don't reap nodes due to a question having been answered. Updating the title is much better than many of the possiblities. Purging the contents of the node is probably the worst course that we see from time to time. Certainly "solve" is more informative than "disregard", of course. - tye	[reply]
Re^3: Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- (reap post?) by blazar (Canon) on Dec 04, 2007 at 00:08 UTC
No, we don't reap nodes due to a question having been answered. I personally believe that you misunderstood, which possibility bothers me because the OP easily may as well. I was talking about reaping a node due to the author wanting it to be reaped - which something like "DISREGARD POST" strongly suggests me. Specifically in the second part of my reply I suggested the use of a "SOLVED" tag as opposite to consideration. I hope it's clearer now.	[reply]
Re^4: Correlation using Statistics::LineFit -- (reap post?) by tye (Sage) on Dec 04, 2007 at 02:23 UTC
[I think] you misunderstood [...] I was talking about reaping a node due to the author wanting it to be reaped No, I didn't misunderstand. I preferred to focus on the author's (theorized) motivation since the source of the request matters very little; the reason for the request is what matters. And the theorized reason (that the question has been answered) seems quite inappropriate; it is certainly against site policy. For more about why "I want my node reaped" is not a valid reason for reaping a node, see (tye)Re: why a nodelet can be kept against author wish?. Win did an admirable job of dealing with the situation, IMHO. - tye	[reply]