use Perl

• Well said! (Score:1)

  by ChrisDolan (2855)

  Bravo, nicely said. It's like moderation advice on Slashdot: don't waste your effort moderating the volumnious bad content. Instead, focus your efforts on rewarding the good efforts.
  
  Virtuous cycles are better than vicious cycles.
  
  Side note: I've noticed that moderation is very rarely used on use.perl.org. Instead, people seem to use the "friend" feature to acknowledge good posts. I think that's just great. It's like permanently modding someone up.
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by rjbs (4671)

    I do think it's worth noting that I'm not entirely against negative reviews -- but they should address things like, "critical bugs have been ignored for months/years" or "this module is broken as designed, because it can never handle years after 1978." Another problem is that if bugs ARE eventually fixed, or years after 1978 are omitted on purpose, the author has no way to reply to the reviewer to ask him to reconsider, as reviews are effectively anonymous: there is a name, but no means to contact.

    --
    rjbs
    • Re:Well said! (Score:1)

      by Aristotle (5147) <pagaltzis@gmx.de> on 2006.12.03 2:26 (#52058) Homepage Journal

      I wrote pretty much the exact same things [perl.org] almost two years ago, in my second use.perl journal. We still have all the same systemic problems.

      Reply to This

      Parent