http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=17299


in reply to Abusive Negative Voting

I voted that post down, and am not afraid to say so.

'what does chomp do?'

Asking a question like that means he didn't even try to look in the docs, and I then feel it is noise (just as this post somewhat is). If it was stated as 'Can someone help me get a clearer understanding of the differences between chop() and chomp()?', well then that means he looked at the docs and has a good question. His

When I don't understand why some of my posts get a -- I bitch in the chatterbox, not create more noise without starting Yet Another Bitch About Negative Votes thread.

Cheers,
KM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: Abusive Negative Voting
by athomason (Curate) on Jun 09, 2000 at 18:27 UTC
    I don't think it's ever appropriate or necessary to vote down a newbie. The only effect that will have is driving away an inquiring programmer from the site. If my first question to a quirkily organized Q/A site was greeted with an anonymous negative vote, no answer, and no explanation, I'd immediately think the forum was filled with arrogant know-it-alls and promptly ask somewhere else. I really don't think Perlmonks is such a place, or I wouldn't frequent it. Asking a simple question doesn't at all require that the asker didn't look in the docs; it just means he didn't find the relevant information. Keep in mind that tools experienced Monks use (the search box, perldoc, etc.) don't have big neon signs pointing to them saying "use me to find information on a built-in function". The obvious function of the search box is searching for nodes, and it's not too blindingly clear that built-ins have their own nodes. IMHO, the best advice one could give to a newbie post would be to answer the outstanding question with a generic reference to a place to look in the future (someone mentioned plugging Camel... that's a good suggestion). And really, do you need to waste a vote postdec'ing a reply?
[reply]
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
RE: RE: Abusive Negative Voting
by buzzcutbuddha (Chaplain) on Jun 09, 2000 at 17:41 UTC
    Like I said, it's obvious that he did not look in the docs before he started posting.
    I am merely trying to say that if you're going to vote it down for something like not
    looking in the docs, then say that, and then vote down. I understand that voting down
    is going to happen. I don't want to alienate new monks. I like the friendly atmosphere
    that we have here and I would like to see it extended to everyone.
[reply]
      Live with it, learn from it, go on with your life. People know they can comment on posts, and will do so when they deem it is needed. Is this conversation going to come up every single week?? By the way, I am giving the start of this thread a --, because I am tired of these threads. Happy? I explained why I am giving it --.

      Cheers,
      KM

[reply]
        If you feel it important to vote down my node, so be it. I appreciate your telling me why. That is all I ask.
        By the way, I have voted your post explaining your negative vote ++.
        Take care.
[reply]
        ....And I've just voted yours --, not that I particularly disagree just that it maintains the dynamic tension ;-)
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion