in reply to Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer

UPDATE: (Jul 31, 2010 at 01:11 UTC)
It looks like there may be a bug in how PTAV is now calculating the Root Node Count. As a sanity check, I picked a recent day at random: June 8, 2010. Super Search shows that there were 18 root nodes created that day, but PTAV only shows 9. That's a big discrepancy.

I picked another day at random: June 8, 2003. Both Super Search and PTAV match for that day 7 years ago (23 root nodes).

I conclude that the recent PTAV results are incorrect, and the following discussion is invalid.

Here is my original post:

++ to jcwren for creating Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer, which is still collecting data nearly 9 years after it was launched.

Well, the 'data' is now 'information'. If we can assume that the data is accurate, it clearly indicates a trend. The 'Root Node Count' (the number of top level nodes) is calculated for every year, from 1999 to 2010. The count peaked in 2001, remained fairly constant for the 5 year period of 2001-2005, then started steadliy declining in 2006.

Would anyone care to speculate on the reason for the decline?

What say you, monks?

  • Comment on Re: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 30, 2010 at 05:54 UTC
    What say you, monks?

    Asking those that are still here will probably not elicit good explanations.

    Is it possible to go straight to the horses mouth and ask former active members to say why they are no longer such? Anonymously or otherwise. Perhaps those here that are still in contact could email them to ask them to post a short explanation of their reasons for moving on.

    Perhaps it could be wrapped up in a poll? (It'd be nice to see a useful one for a change :).

    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.
[reply]
      Nevermind :(

      See my update: Re: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend)

      Asking those that are still here will probably not elicit good explanations.
      You are probably right. However, you might be the perfect monk to recount some event in the history of the Monastery, given your longevity as a monk and your exceptionally high frequency of participation herein. "I remember the hurricane back in '05 that wiped out the barn." I'm not saying there was such an event, but if there had been, you'd be someone in a good position to remember it.
      ask former active members to say why they are no longer such?
      That would be insightful, indeed.
      Perhaps it could be wrapped up in a poll?
      Good idea. I doubt I'll get to it soon; so if anyone else wants to do it, feel free.
[reply]
Re^2: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend)
by mojotoad (Monsignor) on Jul 30, 2010 at 14:15 UTC
    For what it's worth, I was quite active in these parts in the early naughts, after which I went on hiatus for a few years. Recently I've been poking around the halls again.

    In my case, there was no particular reason, just changes in life, work, interests. More recently I had to become proficient in p-p-p...p-p-p...Python! (don't tell anyone) Naturally I spent less time with perl during that.

    Even more recently, I started dabbling around with some XS extensions and perl, plus have begun experimenting with perl6. Messing about with perl again naturally led me to wonder what the monks have been up to, so here I am.

    Things do seem slower, though. Personally I think EV2 is showing its age in this 2.0 world.

    Cheers,
    Matt

[reply]
      Things do seem slower, though. Personally I think EV2 is showing its age in this 2.0 world.
      Good point. Maybe the response time of the site started degrading in the 2005-2006 timeframe. Several people have voiced their impatience over the years. It can be aggravating -- but I still think it's worth the wait :)

      Thanks for sharing your experiences otherwise.

[reply]
Re^2: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend or Bug)
by toolic (Bishop) on Jul 31, 2010 at 01:11 UTC
[reply]

      EDIT: The problem has been remedied and the numbers PTAV reflects are accurate (again)

      Interesting. Although I haven't researched this, I would likely suggest it's a problem in the XML feed, from which that data is derived.

      If that's indeed the case, I may as well take it off line, as it's only wasting bandwidth.

      --jcwren

      e-mail jcwren

[reply]
Re^2: Perlmonks Threaded Article Viewer (Trend)
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 30, 2010 at 06:10 UTC
    What say you, monks?

    Piss off :) There is too many possible reasons and overwhelming lack of information that the problem defies quantification

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion