Urgent.

What exactly are you trying to suggest here?

Sasha

Are you saying that there's not enough animosity available for nondescriptive post content? I beg to differ. I have plenty of animosity to go around, and I freely spend it on both subject lines and post content.

By the way, you really need to provide a little more detail when posting. Please read the first link in my signature and try again. Also, have you tried using google and the lq search function?

I figure it's about the number of threads that have un-descriptive titles and not enough content to answer the question, threads that do not follow the good advice given in LQ's How to Ask a Question.

It would be great if all threads were started following the advice given but people who start threads "are who they are" and "come from where they come from" (truisms!).

It's "obvious" what's best if you have used technical support and reflected on both the process and the needs of the person providing the support but many people are not in that position. Ignorant questioners (I use "ignorant" in its proper sense, not as a pejorative) know only their needs which are often tinged with frustration and associated emotions. In many cases people don't know enough about what they are having problems with to describe it clearly.

So, that's how it is and no benefit in being irritated by it. We provide a broader education than the merely technical.

I took it to mean that when people use an undescriptive subject or something along those lines, that even if there's no doubt as to what question is being asked in the main post, you can guarantee that there will be 5 pages of nothing but people complaining and throwing a fit. Which is true.
No offense to people who point something out when it should be pointed out.

Maybe one of those "whining Gnomes" did something to him. They didn't want to leave his computer.
Gnomes can be worse than Leprechauns.

Y'know, frustrating as it is, most of the time it's simply done out of lack of knowledge. These people are obviously (hopefully, anyway), beginners, and often, after an explanation of why they shouldn't, they're eager to do it correctly. Often, it can be a language issue on top of being new, making it difficult for them.

On Fedora forums (nowhere near as busy as these forums, and I doubt it would be practical here), where I have some mod powers, I usually rename the thread, along with an explanation of why--for example, telling them that busy people will simply ignore a post marked wireless, while they might stop and answer if they know it, when the wireless card is mentioned. Most times, even if I can give them no more help than that (renaming their thread) they say thanks and do better in future postings.

It's always better to light a candle than curse the darkness and all that, and while clever putdowns to posts marked urgent give a brief satisfaction, there's probably more satisfaction in teaching them the right way to post.

Polly Anna-ishly yours,

Quite true, indeed.

Personally, I feel that it should be left to a Mod, or at the very least, the first responder that can also offer assistance. We (and they) don't need five pages of lectures on thread titles.

My

@ scottro11,

your point is valid, as is others made above. The sword is two-edged in this case though:

1) On LQ, Only Admin can rename a thread so that the rename appears in the threads listing; when a mod renames a post/thread, the newname only shows within the post/thread itself. As you can imagine, as busy as it can get around here, troubling Admin to rename every non-aptly-named thread would rapidly lead to Admin meltdown.

2) While it's good practice for a member/mod to politely inform the OP that his/her thread title could be better, and give an example, we try to encourage that this only be done if the adviser can ALSO help with the OP's problem in the same post; otherwise, the OP's thread gets removed from the Zero-Replies list, therefore no longer getting benefits like auto-bumping of 0-reply-threads.

Sasha

EDIT I have since been informed that mods *can* actually change the title in the thread listing (Thanks XavierP). I'm still relatively new as a mod here on LQ and that one evidently slipped by me!

This is what I needed this morning----another really strange thread........

Is it possible that the OP is poking fun at some of the recent instance of threads marked "urgent"---or at our various feeble attempts to stop the practice?

At grapefruitgirl (interesting nick, by the way)

I do understand that--that's one reason I made a point of mentioning that the Fedora forums are far less busy than these forums. Sorry if it came across incorrectly, I just meant that taking the attitude of helping, rather than giving clever putdowns, can be productive.

If it came across as any sort of criticism of moderation on these forums, or seemed to imply "*I'll* show ya how it's done," I most sincerely apologize, it was not meant to sound that way.

Your other point is one that I was unaware of--the whole 0 reply post thing. Excellent idea.

(Again, on Fedora forums it's a much different situation, so I don't know if it would be a good idea there or not. Here, however, it makes a heck of a lot of sense.)

Thanks for the clarification.

Hi scottro11,

no criticism was perceived by me at all and no need to apologize for anything you've said above. You were making a point, and I took it for what it was, no more, no less.

Cheers,
Sasha