Talk:Array length: Difference between revisions
This pseudo-task was foisted on us by a BugMeNot spamming manoeuvre, and reveals a serious editorial blind spot
(The best insight into languages comes from tasks which are external to them) |
(This pseudo-task was foisted on us by a BugMeNot spamming manoeuvre, and reveals a serious editorial blind spot) |
||
Line 22:
::Absolutely – which is why it seems a pity to be starting up more of these simple documentation-lookup entries – missing the chance to actually formulate a problem and task (external to the inner concerns of particular models of computation). A task focus does does yield much more insight and relevance (as well as better coverage across languages).[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
'''Was this documentation-snippet pseudo-task foisted on us by a spamming scam ?'''
:I notice from the history that this documentation-snippet pseudo-task arises from one of these '''BugMeNot''' (login-credential evasion service) logins which have subsequently tried to repeat the trick, perhaps to establish false credentials from which spamming exercises can be launched.
:Clearly somebody has spotted that editorial protection of the central Rosetta Code principle of '''task focus''' has been a bit slack :-)
:Failure to distinguish between genuine tasks and facile documentation-lookup entries has become a bit of an Achilles heel. It's understandable – facile pseudo-tasks are very quickly 'solved', generating the specious impression that this kind of entry is "popular" – when in fact we have no idea how much reader demand there actually is for them – they may, in fact, be egregiously unpopular – and they certainly violate the principle of task focus, scoring exceedingly poorly in the 3 Rosetta axes of '''1.''' relevance to as many languages as possible '''2.''' as much insight as possible '''3'''. as much value to learners as possible.
: A serious blind spot, and a source not just of poor quality, but also of vulnerability to spamming exploits, it turns out.
: At the very least, if there were signs of interest in this area, it should have been immediately reformulated towards less superficiality and at least some vague semblance of a genuine Rosetta task. Even something as simple as ''Find the last element of an ordered sequence'' would have generated richer and more useful material.
| |||