Lots. I wonder, could the forum software be modified to incorporate that box ticking right in the header of the thread opening dialog? Even after this was added to the new poster introduction far too many still come up with "Oops, I didn't see that." or a sheepish "I'm new here."
If it were right in one's face when actually posting and one had to click past it to compose a post then all sorts of admonishment, scolding, chastisement, reprimanding, reproving, and chiding would be in order.
If it would cut down the number of replies asking for code, schematics, clarification, etc. that would be a good thing, no?
This same thing has been debated for years and nothing has changed. Virtually no one reads the rules. The fact that the ones that have read the rules and make a decent first post are, by far, the exception.
I got scolded for scolding a new member that ignored the rules. So I often just ignore those posts.
Maybe they are but I have just plodded on with this forum and not joined anything new.
However, I remember one post when the OP was fed up with having to click through the messages he got about posting, and eventually wanted to do something about it. So to me that this forum is like I said.
Honestly if they can't read a few rules then what are the chances they will understand any reply, unless it is just Googling for them?
The Discourse software encourages correct use of the forum in several ways:
"Greetings!" tutorial
When first entering the site after signing up, new users see a screen overlay that directs them to read a "Greetings" PM from the "@discobot" bot account:
This PM invites them to participate in an interactive tutorial about the basics of using the forum.
There is a video at the link above, but if anyone would like to experience the tutorial (the overlay is only shown for new accounts) in person, you can send a private message to @discobot which contains the following text:
@discobot start tutorial
There is also an "Advanced Tutorial" the users are offered after they are promoted to a higher "Trust Level" (I don't remember which exact level number triggers it).
If you would like to see it, you can send a private message to @discobot which contains the text:
@discobot start advanced tutorial
Post composer message
On the first two posts a user makes, this message is shown in the post composer preview panel:
That community guidelines link takes you to the FAQ page (which is also linked to from the forum header):
Rather than a collection of frequently asked questions as you might expect from the name "FAQ", this document contains general guidelines for responsible forum usage.
Unformatted code detector
When users who are below "Trust Level 3" attempt to publish a post, Discourse scans it for anything that looks like code outside a code block.
If this potentially unformatted code is detected, it shows instructions for properly posting code and asks them to edit their post before publishing.
I don't think that imposing reading chores to new members is the answer. It may prevent some newcomer's mistakes, but it can also create friction or scare new members away. The omission of code tags carries it's own unpleasant consequences, so formal scoldings, by other members or by moderators, are completely unneeded. A simple "Please use code tags, or it will be harder for others to try and help you" is more than enough. If the OP chooses to ignore the advice, let him face the lack or scarcity of answers that will naturally result from this. If the code tag omission came from genuine ignorance or lack of experience, the OP, at this point, will probably educate himself by searching the forum, or maybe ask "OK, how can I do that?" Then, he is either provided with a brief explanation or with a link pointing to one. Problem solved.
All in all, between two styles of beginner's info, i.e.:
What beginners are supposed to know before they even dare posting here
Help others to help you: how can you make your questions more understandable?
I certainly lean in favour of the second one. The first one comes out as authoritarian and self-righteous, even if it contains reasonable requests and is based upon reasonable expectations. The second one fulfills a need and addresses a problem the OP is already experiencing or is liable to experience soon: he wants some answers, but he is not getting them. Why? At this point, he'll read the rules and make sense of them.
For reference, I find the policy they have on Wikipedia quite sensible.
Most people ask and seem to be allergic to reading. Others just ignore it. In any case a beginner will not equate a lack of answers to their own fault, because they simply don't know how this forum works. Or why we want code in code tags.
I've always thought the best person to advise someone seeking new info or advice is the person who has most recently learned that same info or advice. They are just a step or two ahead of the newcomer so can relate to them well.
Whereas the common practice is often that the new info or advice to the newcomer comes from the most experienced persons. But they first learned the new info or advice a long time ago. They are light years ahead of the newcomer.
Why not encourage a culture of people giving a helping hand to those just behind them on the learning track. And a culture of the old hands leaving the newcomers alone.
Do you mean that I shouldn't offer advice on the best way to use the forum or that I shouldn't offer advice on how to use an Arduino or maybe both ?
I agree wholeheartedly that advice should be given in the context of what the person asking for help already understands. This is one of the reasons for asking newcomers to introduce themselves which is quite rigidly enforced in at least one of the International sections of the forum, even to the extent of hiding first posts until the introduction has been done
This code in code tag business has been going on for years. It completely amazes me that somebody cannot program a simple parser, that intercepts the message the poster is about to post, and ascertains if there are 'lots of programming code lines' outside of code tags. Really, it is not that hard to do. And no, I cannot do it for you because I do not have access to the forum engine.
As I mentioned above. It is already done and in place:
Unfortunately, it seems that the sort of person who doesn't read the instructions for posting code correctly also tends to just click the Post Anyway button when they get the warning from the forum software.
Perhaps the interception should be more strict and prevent the poster from posting until the problem is fixed, rather than allowing then to circumvent the system, and go on to make a 'bad' post.
People want a quick answer.
It is ... have problem, find forum, post question, hope for answer.
They don't want to read a load of rules and regulations and have to go to school to do it. Their focus is on their problem and asking the question. They don't mean any harm by it.
Code tag test
void loop()
{
//testing the system
//
}
void setup()
{
//empty
}
Just tested the system in my above post. I now see the interception and the POST ANYWAY button. Well done you forum programmers.
Yeah, take away the POST ANYWAY button, and force the edit.
The problem is that it does sometimes give false positives. I think making the check mandatory would be very frustrating to the users affected by these because they would have to spend quite some time doing trial and error until they found some configuration of the post content that avoided this. It is possible to adjust the detection sensitivity (it is currently at the default setting), but that will always mean making a tradeoff between false positives and false negatives.
Yeah! Even though it hasn't completely solved the problem, I still feel that it must be helping, even if it's only that the forum graybeards aren't the first to scold the poster about their improperly posted code.
You can see the development repository for the plugin here:
Agreed. This is where explanations, as opposed to wanton coercion, come into play. It is wrong and it serves no purpose to punish somebody just for breaking a written rule, if he is clueless about why that rule was written in the first place. He will either 1) comply blindly, so the forum police will leave him alone or 2) get annoyed and walk away from the forum.
At the end of the day, no approach, including mine, will work for somebody who is determined not to follow any rule, not to heed any advice and who still insists that he is entitled to meaningful answers and immediate assistance.