Forum policy: roughness vs. usefulness
-
[quote author="Andre" date="1308743747"]
I think that Ubuntu's forum policies are not a great example to follow, and certainly not something to be followed on a programmer-oriented environment like DevNet. Note that they cater to different kinds of communities: end users vs. programmers. I think more aptitude for self-guidance can be demanded from the second than from the first group. [/quote]I disagree. An important part of Ubuntu's communication to users is to move a part of them over to the contribution side - which makes them developers. We (partly) move API-users to API-authors.
Besides, to me it's simply a matter of respect for the other person.
[quote author="Andre" date="1308743747"]
In my opinion, it is not acceptable to just answer RTFM to a first-time poster with a reasonable question. It is acceptable to use as an answer in cases where someone, despite having been pointed to the actual documentation on multiple occasions, keeps on asking for easy-to-find bits of information. [/quote]The tricky bit here is that although some might be really annoying and not willing to read for themselves, their forum threads will show up in search results, independently from the prior discussion.
What would the impression be to someone new stumbling over this specific thread? Certainly not a very encouraging one...
-
[quote author="Alexandra" date="1308744291"][quote author="Andre" date="1308743747"]
I think that Ubuntu's forum policies are not a great example to follow, and certainly not something to be followed on a programmer-oriented environment like DevNet. Note that they cater to different kinds of communities: end users vs. programmers. I think more aptitude for self-guidance can be demanded from the second than from the first group. [/quote]I disagree. An important part of Ubuntu's communication to users is to move a part of them over to the contribution side - which makes them developers. We (partly) move API-users to API-authors.
Besides, to me it's simply a matter of respect for the other person.
[/quote]
Respect goes both ways. Abusing help channels without being willing to put the effort in yourself, is disrespectful to the community.[quote author="Alexandra" date="1308744291"][quote author="Andre" date="1308743747"]
In my opinion, it is not acceptable to just answer RTFM to a first-time poster with a reasonable question. It is acceptable to use as an answer in cases where someone, despite having been pointed to the actual documentation on multiple occasions, keeps on asking for easy-to-find bits of information. [/quote]The tricky bit here is that although some might be really annoying and not willing to read for themselves, their forum threads will show up in search results, independently from the prior discussion.
What would the impression be to someone new stumbling over this specific thread? Certainly not a very encouraging one...[/quote]
I doubt that, to be honest. It sounds bit academic to me. The search results will return the whole topic, including the many occasions where the person in question was pointed to the right documentation. Yes, in the possible case where one just opens topic after topic, and one of those is found by accident by a person who lets him/herself be scared of very easily, you might have a point. It is not like such a thing happens frequently around here.I am sorry to hear that you felt scared off when posting in some linux group. That was probably undeserved. But like I said before: I don't think that such a reply is acceptable in the casus you described. But that is something else than trying to force people here to be overly polite and nice to each other. Yes, users should have a helpful attitude towards each other, but IMO, some users are helped best by being clearly told they are screwing up, out of line, or just overtaxing the community with their queries. To me, that includes being told to go read the fine/full/freaking/friendly manual, instead of staying reliant on being spoon-fed direct links.
-
[quote author="Andre" date="1308743747"]Yes, I was (I probably should have added a smiley), but this is also from the same wiki page you referenced:
List of expurgated expansions
- Read the field manual (military contexts)
- Read the fine manual
- Read the freaking manual
- Read the friendly manual
- Read the full manual
- Read the full-on manual
[/quote]
Those have arrived after the use of RTFM became widespread. If we want to have an acronym that tells people to go to the documentation we should invent our own, and I can add it to the acronym feature.
Like:
HALATQD - Have a look at the Qt documentation
PCTQD - Please check the Qt documentation
TQDIYF - The Qt documentation is your friendSomething that doesn't have the historical luggage of RTFM. Pretty much anything with "fucking" in it is a no go. Alexandra agrees!
-
The big problem with "allowing" some of the F containing acronyms in some cases, is where to draw the line. I don't know, and I doubt anyone else can come up with a clear definition of that - it's all matter of personal taste and circumstances.
So my conclusion here is to avoid that at all.
From my experience, it's better to avoid insulting stuff - even if only in some cases. It tends to cool down a discussion. Being told "please read the Qt docs, it's there" is much better to ones blood pressure than just "RTFM". And as we all know, writing answers when one is in a rage adds even more fuel to the flames.
So, if you didn't notice yet: I'm with Marius and Alexandra here :-)
-
I 100% agree with keeping a low, informal, friendly and (very) polite attitude (so: no F words at all); but I also think that the forum quickly loses quality if there are lots of RTFM-like questions (see f.i. my other thread on closing the neverending stream of QString-conversion related threads).
I don't see anything bad in replying with a link to the documentation and/or related topics and eventually closing the thread: at least, it gets indexed by google (so, if someone else who has the same problem does a search with similar words, he/she gets a good result).
OTOH: I'd like to see no mercy towards people who just want a readymade solution, without even caring of trying something by themselves first.
BTW, a very related issue is:
!http://www.klocwork.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/If-you-want-them-to-rtfm.jpg(improve)!
which is where our efforts should go: improving the documentation, the wiki articles, and turning good forum threads into wiki pages.
-
@peppe: Well said :) It sums up much of DevNets raison d'ĂȘtre
-
Sold. :P
-
Hi,
I also agree on that, things like RTFM should not be in here, thinks like LMGTFY are OK in my eyes.So will we block these not wanted acronyms then here on dev net?
-
Where's the line between LMGTFY and RTFM? It's hard to tell. Just be polite with users, because they might be offended easily. Or even get discouraged to post what (to their eyes) are "easy" questions, because they're afraid of such an answer.
Let's just don't use them or limit their usage to a bare minimum (as I said: I don't like leeches).
-
[quote author="peppe" date="1308754881"]Where's the line between LMGTFY and RTFM? It's hard to tell[/quote]
LMGTFY is not insulting in its words at least. It's a borderline case too, whereas RT*M is beyond the border, in my opinion. If used at all, we should agree to keep it minimum. No?
-
Keep lmgtfy to a minimum is absolutly ok for me, but sometimes for users, asking things ten times or similar, it is a valid answer, right?