So, am I bashing PM? No, I'm speaking in generalities. Is there room for PM improvement? Yes. Is the OP's idea something that should be implemented? I'm not qualified to provide a definitive answer.

However I do think the question being asked, and resulting discussion is a good thing for PM. I do hope some sort of interface change can eventually be made such that new users are better encouraged to search first, and ask questions later.

-Scott

I disagree with you. Wrong behaviour can only be corrected in a limited way with technological changes. People who don't want to search and read first, but who want answers quick and easy, just are not going to search and read. They will ignore any search results that might be presented when the solution is offered that the OP has thought of.

More experienced Perl Monks often answer questions with a link to a thread with a question and accompanying answer. By doing that, they educate the monks that ask those easy to answer questions. Search first, and if nothing is found, or if things are still not clear, only than ask the question. Most monks learn this lesson quick.

Presenting the monk with a tool that offers search information while the question is being formulated, does not educate the monk, it is spoiling the monk, while putting an unnecessary strain on the system.

An old saying applies here: the whole village is needed to educate a child.

I think we are, for the most part, in agreement; but talking past one another. Technology can not fix behavioral problems, if someone doesn't want to search, even doing the search for them isn't going to get them to stop and read what the search found. I agree with that.

And I understand the desire to not put unnecessary strain on a system by doing what would largely be futile searches. I'm not an advocate for the OP's original idea, but I'm willing to entertain weird ideas for the sake of finding something that would work.

What I did say was that the user interface presented by PM has room for improvement, and that the interface could do a better job encouraging people to search for answers before posting their questions.

So, the basic tenet I'm presenting is that while technology can't fix behavioral problems, it can, through the use of good user interfaces, encourage correct behavior. The XP system here is simply one way technology is used to encourage correct behavior. While not perfect, it can certainly be said to be mostly successful.

I'll add some more comments about possible improvements I've thought about in a different node.

-Scott

Something about this bothers me. Isn't the whole idea of computing and automation to perform tasks that, yes, I could perform myself, but why should I if a computer can do it for me? Then I have more time to do the things that a computer cannot do, and which only I can.

Your comment about the technical problems involved in providing this service is valid, because we don't have infinite resources, but I have to disagree with your philosophy that computers shouldn't be used to automate repetitive tasks because people "should behave the right way".

I really do appreciate all those little and not so little innovations that make my life easier and enjoyable. Like my portable DVD player, which I use to see movies and tv series in bed.

I certainly see the pros and cons of imbedding the super search technology into the page for writing a new node. It's not just making it easier to write a good node. It's not just putting more of a strain on the servers of Perl Monks. It's not just behaviour. It's all this and much more.

If somebody doesn't want to read related nodes before posting a node, (s)he will not read the suggested related nodes.

If somebody does read the suggested related nodes, and use them to adapt his/her new node, the new node might become extremely detailed, complex, long, unreadable, and difficult to answer. Even when the node is already an answer to itself.

I think many monks would ignore this new proposed option.