glass house philosopher / notebook 2
Saturday, 10th December 2005
In 48 hours from now my email message will have gone out to the Sheffield University web administration team and the Pathways Sheffield site will be no more.
I'm feeling nervous, a little excited. But I don't have time to sit and contemplate my navel. There are too many things to do, messy practical details which I need to sort out in a hurry.
Trawling through cgi perl script archives looking for a replacement for Jim Hoagland's getcomments.pl the hidden 'engine' behind Ask a Philosopher I found a nice, well thought-out guest book for the Pathways site written by Paul Williams of Cougasoft, and a beautifully simple and fast message board from the php junkyard which will be perfect for my Pathways students to discuss reading or essay assignments.
But nothing that comes close to doing what getcomments did: allow a visitor to submit a form whose result is instantly printed on a single log page which can be viewed by anyone who knows the URL in this case, the members of the Ask a Philosopher panel.
Since 1999, nearly ten thousand questions have been submitted to Ask a Philosopher using the getcomments software.
Now, you might ask, 'Is the URL a secret, then?' Anyone who is not completely naive knows that it is impossible to keep an address secret on the internet. There's just no link to the log page. The page is available to anyone who knows the address, but the address is not advertised.
The reason is very simple. A significant proportion of the questions we receive are, quite frankly, rubbish: lazy students seeking desperate last-minute help with their homework, or people with nothing better to do than concoct silly questions like, 'Is this a question?' or 'Why is the answer to the meaning of life the number 42?'. To advertise the log page would be an open invitation to produce more of the same.
However, anyone who is aware of this quirk of the getcomments script can visit any web page on the internet that uses it and, by adding a few letters, instantly access the feedback log. This is the reason, I surmise, why the use of the script has been 'deprecated' (to use IT jargon).
This is a serious bug in the program, if you want your visitors to submit comments safe in the knowledge that only the intended recipient will read them. But bugs are in the eye of the beholder. It is not a bug with the Ask a Philosopher form because the purpose is different. Displaying the question submitted on a web page is the only sensible way to make the questions available to the panel members currently numbering 76 avoiding the inconvenience (which I am sure would prompt many panel members to leave) of receiving up to a dozen questions a day in their email inboxes.
Any programmer will tell you that writing software is a messy, hit-and-miss affair. Bugs are the scourge of programmers, a sign that you have missed the target, failed to accomplish what you set out to do. Typically, a piece of software will go through many versions, each time with the faults in the previous version corrected but often creating new faults, new 'bugs' in the process.
But I'm not afraid of bugs. Some of the best software on my Mac has fatal bugs. Programs which crash instantly if you perform a particular operation, or menus that refuse to open, or when they do, do the very opposite of what you asked them to do. Yet those programs may still be useful, even indispensable. So you don't chuck out the software. You get around the problem. Often two or three programs used together will accomplish a goal really well, making up for one another's deficiencies, while the latest bloated all-in-one product from Microsoft or Adobe is as slow as treacle and takes weeks or months to learn how to use.
A tool is defective only if it fails to accomplish the purpose which you intend for it. A busted spanner can make a precision hammer.
There's a philosophical point here, and maybe a psychological one too. There is nothing particularly desirable about perfection per se. Why is it then, that we get so anxious about our flaws, errors, mistakes? What is so great, after all, about being a perfect coward or a perfect scoundrel?
Funny. I just remembered this:Friend, don't be a perfectionist.
Perfectionism is a curse and a strain.
For you tremble lest you miss the bulls-eye.
You are perfect if you let be.
Friend don't be afraid of mistakes.
Mistakes are not sins.
Mistakes are ways of doing something different,
perhaps creatively new.
Friend don't be sorry for your mistakes. Be glad for them.
You had the courage to give something of yourself.
It takes years to be centered;
it takes more years to understand and be NOW.
Frederick S. Perls
Back in the early 70's an American friend who was into Carl Rogers and client-centered therapy gave me a poster with those words, illustrated by a slightly corny photograph of a young man wading in the sea. (Talking about 'cgi perl' scripts, that's what jogged my memory. Talk about serendipity!)
I don't know what happened to the poster. Or the other poster she gave me with Thoreau's famous words about the 'distant drummer'. Somewhere around that time I made my decision to enrol on a BA program in Philosophy. Maybe the posters helped, in some obscure way.
I wrote to James Hoagland and he very kindly replied promptly with a copy of the getcomments.pl script.Interesting site, though your theory about the reason for the deprecation is incorrect. The main factor is that I am no longer interested in the project and figured there were more technologies available that made the script obsolete or outmoded.
I tried the script out but it didn't work, apparently because of incompatibility with the newer Perl interpreter used by the philosophypathways.com web hosting service. Well, Hoagland did warn me.
Send me an Email
Ask a Philosopher!