We already had various discussions in the past that Saints in our Book and Selected Best Nodes are biased to the early millennium because of the deflation of votes.

See Deflation and "Selected Best Nodes"

I'd like to provide and code a "yearly saints" page and more relevant selected nodes. °

I think it's beneficial to motivate new monks instead of making them stare at some unreachable "alte kakers" who haven't been here for a decade or keep bragging about their past achievements.

• One approach for nodes would be multiplying corrective weight per month calculated by the total number of cast votes.
• Another having an additional saints list for the last x years only.

PS: to make it clear, this is not about me.

I'd pay money for restricting my online time here.

Update

°) there seems to be a misunderstanding that I want to disable the old pages/mechanisms. That's not the case, I want to extend them with more choice. For instance is "saints" already linking to two other statistics.

What's your opinion about introducing some coding challenges to PM?

I see in cb people writing about participating in this or that challenge elsewhere, and I have also signed up to one. It is obviously a stir as most of us need a challenge.

There are many practical problems. e.g. whose server should the submissions be run? and should there be an IDE online?

I say, host codes to github and force a template: a Makefile and some test and benchmark files. All we need to submit here would be a test/benchmarks score obtained when running our code on our computers. Regarding efficiency benchmarks, we can make them relative (therefore comparable) to say the time it took the same computer+OS to sort a long list.

Just an idea to fight the brain-drain

bw, bliako

As this image shows, sometime over the last few days, the listed "creation time", and sometimes date also, of all my posts has changed.

No big deal, but ...

1. Is management aware of it?
2. Is it deliberate?
3. Is there a (good?) reason for it?

No urgency, but nice to know.

Also, how does management view/process "Rights to Erasure" under GDPR?

This is a followup to RFC: Better Best Answers

The fundamental objective of my proposal is to eliminate the Categorized Questions and Answers section — its machinery is odd, gratuitously different from the other sections; difficult to maintain, and nobody uses it, despite its promise — and replace it with something better.

So I have implemented part of the proposal, up to a basic level of functionality, as follows:

It is now possible to mark root posts in the Seekers of Perl Wisdom section (hereinafter called questions) as "good", and to mark as "good" any replies (hereinafter called answers) to questions marked as "good". (To be very clear: a question can be 'good'; and a 'good' question can have 'good' answers. An answer cannot be 'good' unless its root post is 'good'.)

Furthermore, it is possible to associate one or more tags (aka keywords) to a 'good' question.

In most views (such as the SoPW section and threaded node views), questions and answers marked as 'good' will be displayed with a nice gold star next to the title, as well as the tags.

There is a new section-like page, Illuminations, which lists all the tags currently in use; this view is analogous to the main page of the Q&A section. If you click on one of the tags, you get a page listing the individual questions having that tag.

Marking a node as 'good' (which I have internally called "blessing"), and setting the keywords of a blessed node, are features accessible to the QandAEditors via their nodelet.

Also of interest to the QandAEditors is the enhancement whereby 'SoPWify'ing a Categorized Question not only converts it to a SoPW post but marks it as 'good' and gives it a tag corresponding to the QA section it was in. An example of this effect can be seen in this post. You can see that it is 'blessed' (it has a gold star), and its tags consist of "numbers"; that's because, before conversion, it was a Categorized Question under the QandASection: numbers section.

So that's the basic workings we have so far. There's a bit more to do before we can consider this major task done:

• Implement tag search functionality. This should be a tweak to the extant title search functionality, so that it searches tags at the same time it searches titles.
• Bulk-convert the extant CatQ's. (QandAEditors can do these one by one today, using the 'SoPWify!' button.)
  • When that's done, take whatever succeeding steps are necessary to "shut the section down", e.g. disabling the submission form.
• Implement the resounding effects of blessing. Possibilities are discussed in the RFC. Don't trigger these effects for nodes converted from CatQ, however.
• Update the QandAEditors documentation.
• Indicate Good Questions and Answers in RAT. Or maybe not.
• Add a nice GUI around setting and modifying blessings and tags.
• Announce the new feature in Tidings.
• Figure out how we'll increase the ranks of QandAEditors. Maybe import all current active Janitors and Pedagogues?

Now my question for you, fellow monk, is:

What do you think of this? Is it a good idea? What more could we do with this capability to make PerlMonks better?

Further thoughts...

I would also be concerned that QandAEditors (or whatever group is given this power) might be tempted, however subconsciously, to treat this award as a special upvote for themselves. We do not want these deputies to go casting stars on every question they like.
Therefore, I think we should establish some requirements for a question to be eligible for the star. How about:

• Must have at least $NORM reputation; and
• Must be at least 3 days old.

I know I haven't been around for a while, but I was very upset when I found that cbstream wasn't working anymore. I was wondering if there is a new cbstream yet, and if so, which IRC channel is it on? I really miss being able to have multi-day conversations with people in the Chatterbox, but without cbstream or something like it, those are no longer possible. The only options that are currently listed have very short time ranges, an hour or less. It used to be that I was able to have conversations for days. So, what if anything, has replaced cbstream? (Please gods let there be a replacement.)

Please revert this ridiculous idea and restore readability to Perlmonks!

Thank you

• how many upvotes their most popular nodes may have gotten since their last visit
• if new comments have appeared in old threads they started
• XP information
• highlight some recent popular posts

Unfortunately this feature seems to be gone now in FF too.

Bookmark properties used to show a checkbox saying something like "Load this bookmark into the sidebar" (still available in FF<60)

My current FF66.0.2 is up to date and this feature disappeared.

RIP! :(

PS: we might need to update the description in Other CB Clients

update

• https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9r3dfs/firefox_63_cant_open_bookmarks_in_the_sidebar_any/
• https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1452645

I had a conversation with rsFalse about one of his empty posts and he told me that he doesn't get a preview button.

So I suggested to uncheck "No Forced Preview" in User Settings , but he told me that there is no effect whatsoever.

I got curious and tried it out and it really doesn't seem to change anything. *

I'm not sure if this is related to his case and probably he already found another solution, but it seemed necessary to report that this feature doesn't seem to work.

UPDATE Solved

*) Sorry, pryrt  clarified it for me.

I wrongly expected the preview button to disappear.

I have spotted a new user with name p&#2662;j. This is p-<Gurmukhi Digit Zero>-j (http://www.codetable.net/decimal/2662) which is similar to poj. Has it requested for a password change?

re: spotify hack: https://labs.spotify.com/2013/06/18/creative-usernames/

bw, bliako

Hi all, I propose that the timestamp on a post be updated to the time of the most recent edit.

The original time should also be preserved and used for computing the Best/Worst nodes lists. But if someone edits their post I would like to be able to know that programmatically (ie in RAT, Newest Nodes) rather than having to scan all existing posts to see if an author has added/changed/cribbed something (*if* they declare it).

I will gladly help with implementing these changes if needed.

Thanks!

The error page told me to contact monkperl at pairvps.com with a problem description.

Now I got this non delivery notification:

> The recipient server did not accept our requests to connect. Learn more at https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7720 [pairvps.com 216.92.18.161: timed out]

I’m currently seeing two problems in Recently Active Threads:

(1) Node Re: Making all nibble zero lower than the offset is displayed as having been posted “-164 seconds ago” (should be “6 hours ago”¹).

(2) Node Perl 5 Forever, which I re-parented as per the consideration, is displayed as “U[napproved]” even though it is no longer a root node (and the node’s own display contains “Approve” and “FrontPage” buttons).

Update

• I’m also seeing different “Created” times when I view this node via the “Nodes You Wrote” display.

Cheers,

¹ or maybe “1 hour ago”? The display changes (erratically) when I refresh.

The following came up when I searched google for 'perl guru'

Looking for a perl guru - PerlMonks
https://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=153147

Jun 15, 2018 - 4 posts - 3 authors
[download]

What I found strange is that google's search results present this link with the date Jun 15, 2018 whereas the actual node's newest content is from Mar 20, 2002. It also misses the author count (3 instead of 4) but succeeds on the posts count (4). But it is the date mismatch I find the most important, it happened to me several times already.

This could be entirely google's mistake, or a PM hack-not-bug :), I am just reporting it.

My node Last best chance to rename "Perl6" which pointed out a blog post elsewhere, predictably garnered a number of downvotes. For most of yesterday and today the reputation of the node has been displayed to me as '10' with 'no significant downvotes.' Yesterday once in the evening I saw it showing (16+, 6-). Is "significant downvotes" variable? Is six downvotes sometimes or always considered insignificant? Is this intermittent behavior a bug?

Thanks!