Sex is good - I'm baffled

Looking for a thread to which I had contributed, I sorted my nodes, highest rep first. Then I noticed the URL:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=6364&user=436161&length=50&orderby=hr&start=0&showtype=&sexisgood=Search
Notice that last parameter: "sexisgood". Now, I'll accept that PerlMonks is like sex - when it's good, it's incredibly good, but when it's bad, it's still pretty damned good. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would use that parameter name. Was it copied from some other site? Is this some standard of which I'm unaware? Does someone have an intimate problem? I can't think of a logical explanation. Super search returns several nodes that don't contain that string. So I'm baffled. I'm also like Dirty Harry's bank robber: "Hey, man, I gots to know". Please could someone tell me more, even as an anonymonk if that would save embarrassment.

Regards,

John

Update 2023-09-30: I see that the parameter is now "perlisgood".

Comment on Sex is good - I'm baffled Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Sex is good - I'm baffled by Albannach (Monsignor) on Jan 30, 2011 at 18:42 UTC
Perhaps a little research would help? The true origins are known to few and likely lost in the fog of human memory, so let's call them traditional. -- I'd like to be able to assign to an luser	[reply]
Re: Sex is good - I'm baffled by Jenda (Abbot) on Jan 31, 2011 at 11:40 UTC
PerlMonks is like sex - when it's good, it's incredibly good, but when it's bad, it's still pretty damned good. --- I'm afraid you are wrong. About the sex I mean, not sure about Perlmonks. Jenda Enoch was right! Enjoy the last years of Rome.	[reply]
Re: Sex is good - I'm baffled by zentara (Archbishop) on Jan 31, 2011 at 14:17 UTC
I find it illuminating that you see "sexisgood" as "sex is good". Why not "sexis go od"? :-) I think those university sex studies show that the average man spends 60% of his thoughts on sex.... gettin it, where he got it last, wantin to git more :-) I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth. Old Perl Programmer Haiku ................... flash japh	[reply]
Re^2: Sex is good - I'm baffled by Anonymous Monk on Jan 31, 2011 at 14:51 UTC
Well, Davies' interpretation is totally in-line with the way google sees it: try googeling for "sexis go od" or "sexisgood", and you will find only links related to the positive side(s) of sexuality. ... but on the other hand that might be a sign that google is totally dominated by testosterone-driven machos ;-)	[reply]
Re: Sex is good - I'm baffled by wjw (Priest) on Jan 31, 2011 at 15:11 UTC
...The truth comes from the most unexpected places sometimes...when it seems to show up randomly, trust it... :-) ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it... The Spice must flow... ..by my will, and by will alone.. I set my mind in motion	[reply]
Re: sexisgood by N-Wing (Deacon) on Mar 02, 2011 at 00:45 UTC
See also URL Tomfoolery; in particular, chromatic's reply (which blames nate (which, to my knowledge, is correct)). I think this was the Everything-engine way of knowing when a form was submitted, as opposed to just displaying the form. This allowed for a relatively easy way to determine if a setting (such as a checkbox) should be cleared because the user set it that way (such as unchecked the checkbox) or the value is clear because the page was generated without the form being submitted. It looks like E2 still uses that in a lot of places, but PerlMonks appears to use a different mechanism for probably the most common case (checkboxes, as seen in checkvar). `--== [N] ==--`	[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion