Hi everybody,
today user @xfpd posted an idea that I fully agree with
His original post is
in this thread
I am quoting it here for convenience
@the moderators and @the users :
what do you think?
1 Like
Followed this thread and I quite agree it was an exercise in futility from the first few posts.
I think the only answer is for user to stop replying to a thread at the first sign of this behavior. I know we are all trying to help but you could see this was not going anywhere early on.
Maybe some sort of post saying posters were baling out, and putting the thread on mute so they would not be getting anymore notice of posts in this thread.
1 Like
There will always be some users that will still answer.
I would like to see a solution that gives the thread opening user this perspective:
Thread stays closed and hidden
until
you followed some basic rules that are
link to rule-description
I've always wondered why the Thread Starters never provide enough details of their projects.
And another detail is that they don't read either, for example in this thread
The user in post#3 give a beautiful answer and the Thread starter answer was xD. Well, you better check it out on that thread.
And on top of that he comes to demand (post#17):
I always take notice of any advice given on this forum. I received a suggestion as to why my code was not compiling. It was that I did not put a return type in. So I then put in 'int return'. This also didn't compile. It is apparent that you do not test this code out yourself or you would know this.
I also explained the second point you bought up. The variable was being updated all the time from the rest of my code which was not shown. It was not stuck in the while loop forever.
Please suggest a code that will work for a subroutine call. Then test it yourself to make sure it compiles. Make it simple. Just call a subroutine to return a specific value.
Something like this;
sub1;
y=(x*2);
sub1{
x=5;
return (x)}
Do the correct coding for this. You always point out my mistakes but never suggest a sketch that will compile.
I like the idea of posts being hidden until information is provided, but wouldn't that be a lot more work for the moderators? Perhaps an unmanageable amount of work.
I am against anything like this. It only adds to what makes ppl fail here. They already do not read the how-to posts, they already do not read for some time before posting.
It's our collective fault for engaging. I don't see that changing, as @StefanL38 says there will always be ppl who will respond, whether in a useful appropriate manner or just to show off or one more optimist who thinks it will be different this time.
I don't like not responding. But I neither like the idea of muting someone by placing them in special circumstances until they comply with policies and conventions that may well be asking too much. Who will judge, and I agree that would be a monumental taks.
Try to remember when you didn't know any of the several many things it takes to create a decent new thread. When code was as good as hieroglyphics - yes, obvsly carrying meaning, but absolutely impenetrable. Same same schematics, flow charts, pseudocode and all the other stuff we forget having to learn.
What I have done: there are two ppl now, down from a larger number, who will publicly call BS on a forum participant and leave a thread with prejudice. And occasionally panache.
At that point I can't say I stop reading those threads, but I do stop contributing.
I don't think anything would work to improve the situation. Like so much of life these days, if you don't like what you are seeing, move on; there are plenty of threads with ppl who do want more than a canned solution and have put in the effort to meet us at least halfway.
a7
1 Like
I am okay with being on the wrong side of this. On the moment, I felt it could be said. I do not like "make work" ideas, or denying information, either. It is good to stay with current methods, and leave change to time.
This moderator thinks:
Yes.
Not only that there's judgement required, how many times have you seen one person ask for more information then someone else provide a satisfactory answer with the limited information the OP has given? How am I, as a mod, supposed to know what information you or anyone else actually needs to answer the question?
I agree.
Yes!
Exactly.
I occasionally say in topics that are going wrong something like:
The OP is under no obligation to provide any information if they don't want to, and helpers are under no obligation to help.
If the OP cannot or will not provide information then put your efforts in elsewhere. I'm sure you all know of a current topic with, I don't know (I can't be bothered to check), 200+ replies and that's after another similar topic was closed. Well, I can only assume the people trying to help are enjoying the experience, but I'm not participating because I think the OP is a troll and a time waster.
Please don't reply with a link to the topic.
Ideally please don't single people out.
I agree but forget about this "hidden" catagory nonsense.
If you ask a question and you don't receive and answer within 31 seconds, then the OP should be permanently banned along with his horse.
Ban the OP? To be honest, I occasionally see questions being asked that aren't always relevant to the OP's topic (and thus the OP ignores the request).
According to the OP, but the OP might not have the depth to know relative information, or might be burnt out. "What does a picture matter, I'm using TX/RX." The OP has been staring at crossed wires, calling it good. When asking for help, answer the questions.
I recently "forgot how to solder." I got about a dozen questions checking that I did not miss something (time, material, temperature, angle, size, power) and I answered all of them because that is how Q and A goes, or it does not work.
Hi everybody,
thank you very much for your answers.
It inspired me to think in a different direction:
Of course everybody is free to post whatever she/he likes.
TO s that ignore "bootF" (how to get the best out of this forum) because they want a quick answer.
How about using short = quick to read standard textes that shall convince
- but of course can't force - a TO to answer questions.
First of all these textes shall meet the TOs aim to get quick answers / a faster solution
and then explain what informations to provide. 2 or 3 rather short sentences to get a higher chance to be read.
And to keep the effort for posting such textes as small as possible
to use any kind of automation which could be
-
A HID-capable arduino that acts as a keyboard on button-presses
-
using the software Autohotkey with hotstrings
which means you type something short like "bootf" and autohotkey replaces the short hotstring by whatever text you like. -
other ideas what can be used?
I simply thinks that goes both ways--you can't say that all responders are alway asking good/valid/relevent questions. But to BAN the OP because every-single-question wasn't answered? No.
Just seems to me: if the OP isn't providing the necessary info, then just move on. No need to flame the OP or belabor the point. Just move on and help someone else.
3 Likes
Also, I've seen a handful of threads where the OP posts a rather detailed/clear question. Yet quickly followed with knee-jerk responses of "we're not going to help until you post your code, and your schematics and all your devices."
And then later on, someone (with clear knowledge of the issue) simply chimes in with the answer (and didn't need the superfluous info).
1 Like
That is not the answer for the people who enjoy helping. Helpers want to help, and expect reciprocation. What a waste of time it is for a helper to give and give when the "gimme" refuses to share information.
So, everyone should just shut up until the single answer that fixes all the problems arrives? Ridiculous.
When you visit your doctor, do you refuse to answer questions?
That can sometimes limit the usefulness of the topic for someone that happens to land there after a search engine query. A good schematic might be more informative to them than a word description.
Of course, it could be argued that the forum is under no charter to help anyone not the OP.
As I said: if the OP isn't providing the information (that you need/want/desire), then just move on.
Belaboring the point beyond that is childish.
1 Like
I agree. That is sometimes the case.
But not providing that isn't grounds for a permanent ban (which is specifically was I was referring to).
That is not how real life works. Welcome. Ask any question.
Sorry, I missed the connection.