Some vanity is just plain silly: Now we have another module author giving his module five stars without even mentioning it's his work he has rated. Gross.
My holy promise should therefore be recorded here that I'll never rate one of my own modules when I think it's good (mediocre ratings explicitely permitted).
I did not dare to rate mine... (Score:3, Interesting)
I did not dare to rate my own modules, because 1) I was sure the system did not allow it, and 2) I didn't want to look like an egotical fool in front of the Perl community.
But I like my modules, and I like it even more when people tell me they like them too (which happened a few times recently). ;-)
Reply to This
Counterbalance (Score:2)
How it is (Score:5, Interesting)
This is, frankly, why I brushed off hfb and pudge's "the sky is falling" complaints - I knew it was harmless and that the real threat to the system was from stunts like the ones mentioned in this journal entry.
One solution would be to do what bebits.com does - you don't get a visible rating until at least 10 people have voted on your code. I think I would reduce that to 3 for cpanratings, but it would work.
Reply to This
Re:How it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Although it is somewhat an edge case in its wording.
But at least those five stars you gave were a) justitfied and b) given by you and not Tim Bunce.
I knew it was harmless and that the real threat to the system was from stunts like the ones mentioned in this journal entry.
I think people overestimate these ratings. I am not going to use a module unless I need it. Even if it has a few hundred stars
Re:How it is (Score:2)
And I will come clean and note that I rated one of my own modules, D'oh, but the module is a joke to begin with (and predates Acme:: by several years