Re^5: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

I don't see anything in JD's post that suggests we need rules for this:

I don't think that having one "RTFM" type answer among the several that a querent receives is necessarily a bad thing.

As usual, just a very fair minded: one amongst others does no harm.

But the moment you make a rule that the OP has to prove due diligence before they may expect anything other than a RTFM/LMGTFY/WHYT reponse, you open the flood gates to the race to see who can post it first.

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".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

The start of some sanity?

Comment on Re^5: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" descrition?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description? by ww (Archbishop) on Apr 09, 2012 at 18:19 UTC
And if you don't regard the formal guidance in How do I post a question effectively? (the link in jdporter's post) or the explanations provided in such readily accessible documents as PerlMonks FAQ and Guide to the Monastery as tantamount to "rules" or "directions" (maybe I should have included "bake a cake" in my list), what's to [limit\|restrict\|discourage\|deprecate]+ a flood of ill-considered questions and lazy 'gimme's that overwhelms the site's value? As a matter of fact (and yes, this is highly subjective), it seems to me that as the inclination to provide guidance and correction here (the practice of urging that factual questions reflect some effort on OPs part) has waned, the prevalance of such questions has increased. I suggest a quick scan of older OP's --those, say, in the 400K-600K range (2004-2007) -- and comparison with those in the 900Ks may lead others to a similar conclusion.	[reply]
Re^7: RFC: Review of "Seekers of Perl Wisdom" description? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 09, 2012 at 18:37 UTC
And if you don't regard the formal guidance The opening phrase of your first link is: If you want to get good answers.... That not a rule, it is a suggestion. A good one -- well advised and well worth following -- for those that find and read it before posting! But no way do I read either the text nor the intent of any of those links to mean: Do it! Or we'll beat you over the head with this! As a matter of fact (and yes, this is highly subjective), it seems to me that as the inclination to provide guidance and correction here (the practice of urging that factual questions reflect some effort on OPs part) has waned, the prevalance of such questions has increased. I suggest a quick scan of older OP's --those, say, in the 400K-600K range (2004-2007) -- and comparison with those in the 900Ks may lead others to a similar conclusion. And therein lies why it is a bad idea to make presumptions and draw conclusions. Your conclusion is, the value of the questions has deteriorated. My (tentative) opinion is , is that maybe this place has become more tolorant; and that has brought a higher proportion of new blood with lower levels of experience. But enough now. I have my view, you have yours. You'll do what you'll do; and I'll ... 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". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. The start of some sanity?	[reply]