A. Pagaltzis writes: > * Adam Kennedy [2006-05-23 11:10:13] > > > Data-Pageset (1.03) ??? 1 star: > > > > This is reciprocal karma for the author one-starring a > > competing module and advertising his own. Bad form. (not a > > commentary on how this works) > > This sort of thing is lunacy. What???s the point of MODULE REVIEWS > if they???re going to be turned into crusade vehicles?
I agree: I only care about whether a module is good enough to use, not what else the author may've done elsewhere. Fortunately I don't think this matters too much. At the moment a typical module has so few reviews that if I'm investigating it I will bother to read all of them, so I can easily discount comments such as the above. If Cpan Ratings becomes so popular that this is no longer feasible that'll mean a module's overall star rating is an average of so many ratings that the odd bogus rating will have little impact. > Adam, dude: there are ???Was this review helpful to you???? voting > links on each review for exactly this purpose. I voted ???No??? on Leo > Lapworth???s review, (I hadn't read Leo's review (on Data::Page::Set) until now, but I don't see what's so terrible about it. He's providing the information to a potential user of Data::Page::Set that he considers Data::Pageset to be "much more flexable"[*0]; that's useful to know. And he even admits to being the author of the module he's recommending, so that readers can see his potential for bias and take that into account; not mentioning this would be sneaky, but as it is nobody can read Leo's review without realizing it's just his opinion and that he isn't a disinterested party. People who have encountered Leo or his work before can also use that to help them decide how much to trust his opinion of a rival module. > which at the time of this writing has a count of 0 out of 8. If I were in the market for a module dealing with pagesets I'd appreciate the existence of Leo's comment -- so I've just made the above 1 out of 9!) But ... the above is all in brackets because it's irrelevant to having an opinion on Adam's 'reciprocal karma' rating: it isn't that I don't think Adam should've attacked Leo because I don't see the problem with Leo's actions, but that I simply don't think it's an appropriate use of Cpan Ratings to launch attacks like this at all. [*0] And also that he can't spell "flexible"; that's less useful to know. Smylers
