...from the redundancy department of redundancy.

I'm somewhat new to the Monastery and am still learning the habits of the community. In answering questions in the SoPW node, I frequently give an answer only to find the same answer given by several monks just minutes or seconds before me. I'm never quite sure if I should edit out my answer or let it stand. I realize it comes down to the specifics of the question asked and the variety of answers, but I'm curious to hear what the accepted practice/behavior might be. There's some merit in having the same answer stated multiple ways. One of them, perhaps more, is bound to help someone at some point. On the other hand, reading six admonishments to use strict and warnings does get a bit tedious. Is there some agreed upon thinking regarding this subject?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: And now a little redundancy...
by arhuman (Vicar) on Jul 25, 2001 at 16:20 UTC
    I've made this mistake several times.
    While I was complaining about it in the CB, someone* give me a good advice :

    "Rather than whinning or just ask your node to be deleted,
    you'd better update your node to add another useful information"

    For my part I think it's a GOOD advice, and I'm now trying to follow it whenever I can.

    * Please, If you remember YOU told me this, /msg me for I can give you credit...

    "Only Bad Coders Code Badly In Perl" (OBC2BIP)
[reply]
Re: And now a little redundancy...
by footpad (Abbot) on Jul 25, 2001 at 18:35 UTC

    I'm with arhuman; I would much rather see multiple postings confirming the same good advice than have "pseudo-duplicates" deleted out of hand.

    Part of this stems from my distaste of direct editorial censorship. If someone has taken the time to compose a post attempting to help, even a short one with a link to further information, I believe that contribution should (generally) be given a chance to stand--even if there are more idiomatic, more well-written, or even more accurate responses in the thread. The writer tried to contribute and I like to see that encouraged. It even leads to interesting side discussions. (Unlike some, I do read all the replies in threads that interest me.)

    However, the main reason why I don't mind seeing the same advice repeatedly posted in short order is because everyone has a unique set of experiences. Seeing different points of view over the same constructs can be just as educational (for me, at any rate) as the initial FAQ-answer. This assumes, of course, that the multiple posts include a little from the writer's direct point of view, experiences, and knowledge.

    While I understand why some prefer brevity in their "standard" responses, I learn more from posts tailored to the thread in question. Sure, "Just the FAQ's" help, but the details can help fill gaps in the "Fine Manual" or uncover interesting corner cases.

    --f

[reply]
      One more reason to keep redundancy: keeping duplicate answers adds load only to database and HTTP server (and adds "feature" that authors will update answers, adding points of understanding).
      However, deleting duplicate posts is manul-intensive labor, editors will have to evaluate which answer is *the best*, and even then, they might delete it one second after original author updated it to add real "perl of enlightement" - which will be deleted as well.

      So select one: ;-)
      1 - Micro$oft approach: It is not a bug, it is a feature.
      2 - Common sense approach: If it is not broken, don't fix it.

      pmas
      To make errors is human. But to make million errors per second, you need a computer.

[reply]
Re: And now a little redundancy...
by suaveant (Parson) on Jul 25, 2001 at 21:12 UTC
    Hey, it's an imperfect system, that can't really be perfected. It takes time to type out an answer. People understand this, so I say just leave it, or fix it if it isn't quite right. Three answers are better than none :) And, if you look at it this way, seeing more than one person come to the same solution separately gives that response an added level of validity. (either that or points out a common mistake :)

                    - Ant

[reply]
Re: And now a little redundancy...
by petral (Curate) on Jul 26, 2001 at 05:12 UTC
    (Let me see if I can get this in before someone beats me to it.)

    I open reply-to in a second window and try to remember to refresh the main thread just before hitting submit.  It's saved me (and even others) embarassment more than once.  Though, I admit, it's hard to throw away your own typing after you get it looking so good in the preview.

      p

[reply]
      I agree. The same-answer dilemma acts as a sort of crucible. You can't say the same thing as the other guy, so off you go to the docs or to Google to find and reveal some hitherto unknown gem. It forces the answer to a finer point (in the best of circumstances... in the worst, a flame war breaks out, competition having run amok....).

      BTW, to petral's practice of spawning a new browser window, I notice there's sparse use of new windows in links throughout this site. I wonder if in the SoPW it might be useful to use them a bit?

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion