Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

by GotToBTru (Prior)
on Jun 05, 2015 at 19:35 UTC ( [id://1129243]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Whilst expanding our minds and skills into areas complimentary to Perl.

If that was what would be in an OT area, it would have my vote as well. Is it pointless to speculate that the potential "anything goes" interpretation of OT might be the sticking point? Would Related Topics be more acceptable? My cursory scan of the list didn't see anything like that.

Dum Spiro Spero

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Jun 05, 2015 at 19:53 UTC

    What we need is a workable/working keyword system, so that rather than throwing things into a catch-all "off topic" bag, each post can have keywords that indicate the topic. New posts would maybe have the 'Perl' keyword selected by default. :-)

    But lacking that, the stand-in is, and has always been, the free-text title of the post. It's quite effective. "Keyword searching" works very well indeed (if not 100% perfectly according to 100% of monks' wishes).

    I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.

      I like the notion of a keyword system, but if the keywords are user-selected, why should we expect the results to be any better than our defacto (almost) keyword system of asking perps...   uh, 'posters' of new root nodes to create clear, relevant and searchable titles? (Well, yes, I know we don't ask for the "searchable" but I think the frequency with which "haznav" crops up in a consideration for a title change

      1. ...seems to suggest that search-ability is a desideratum.
              and
      2. ...provides unambiguous support each of your second para's conclusions ...BUT at the same time suggests the extent to which users post weak, ambiguous or flat-out lousy titles is a reason for concern.

      But trying to write an AI process that would provide better titles is a challenge I'm not about to enlist for, and I suspect is too big a challenge and task for Monks who lack as huge excess of spare time. To that extent, a clearly labeled section for "Related topics"   -- ( as suggested above )  -- seems to have merit, despite the number of times it's been rejected.


      Come, let us reason together: Spirit of the Monastery
Re^4: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 05, 2015 at 20:16 UTC

    I guess that there would have to be some rules. Some indication of what is an acceptable off-topic and what is not.

    As a first filter; I would suggest: "MUST be programming related." It's a catch-all, with doubtless many possible (deliberate or otherwise) misinterpretations. But still a valuable starting point.

    I'd probably add a list of specific, verboten subjects. The big four + politics would probably cover off most things; but its a minefield.


    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    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". I'm with torvalds on this
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1129243]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-28 17:25 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found