The problem I see is that the blatantly zero-effort posts subtract from the really useful posts. Since we cannot control zero-effort, I wonder if a better tactic is to find ways of improving the Good Posts; the ones where the OP makes an effort, provides information, and that ultimately results in a solution.

For me, my typical ex post facto experiences with LQ is that I search for an answer, find a post, read it, and then am left scratching my head trying to figure out what the actual solution ended up being. By contrast, there is another popular tech forum online that often pops up in searches, and if you go there, the "solution" post is clearly marked, the thread is closed to new and excessive posts, and it all seems very clear and tidy.

I wonder if there is some way, therefore, to accentuate the successful posts on LQ, and de-emphasize (as I believe TBOne is suggesting) the posts of poor quality. I don't know how this could be done, exactly, but maybe if posts had Reputation points much as LQ users do? ie, when we see a poor post, we can give it reputation points for being poor quality but if we see really excellent posts we can upvote its reputation so that it gets, both for current and archival purposes, a good reputation as something well-worded, provided with good feedback from the user, and properly and clearly solved.

Just some ideas.

2 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the feedback. This sort of exists at LQ actually. If enough members mark a certain post as helpful, it will be noted at the top of the thread which along with the "Mark as solved" functionality should help to surface the correct posts to solved threads. Note that at LinuxExchange we actually allow the OP to select a specific answer as the one that solved their issue, but I'm not sure if that translates as well to the conversational nature of a forum.

--jeremy

2 members found this post helpful.

I certainly am not the most diplomatic person, and as such, can't provide much that would be useful in this situation. Although I will suggest that there be SOME sort of stick behind the carrot. Whether that is a temporary ban, an infraction, or whatever, it needs to have some teeth.

I agree that there needs to be a way to educate posters of that type, and I'm not saying to be flat-out nasty to them at all. But if the posters question can be solved by putting the exact question into Google and reading what's probably the first hit, there is NOTHING to be served by posting it here. The responder isn't sharing knowledge; they are handing the poster a link that they didn't even try to find themselves. It's far different to say "I have been trying to figure out the Red Hat download page for a while now, and can't. Can someone help me download RHEL7?", versus "Give me a link to download RHEL7". One shows effort, and gives an opportunity for help/discussion/education...the latter is plain lazy. Even if someone hands that person a link to the ISO image, that link may not be valid in the next day; Red Hat can change it at their discretion. So the information posted may or may not be right...the Google query will probably be right, since they crawl things constantly. Accurate information > outdated information.
I agree with your sentiment, but I think you misunderstood me or my example. If my former co-workers or my current employees came to me for help, I'd ALWAYS give it, without question, and do whatever I could to assist them. And I still do. What I would NOT do then (or now), is someone elses job FOR THEM. To differentiate:

• "Hey, I've been working on this piece of code for a week, and it's just not working. Would you take a look and see what you can find?" = Gladly assist
• "Hey, I need a program to do XXX...would you write it for me?" = Get the hell out of my office and do your own work

To take your academia example further, if a scholar asked for opinions on their work or with, say, a translation, it's a given they'll get it. Would that same scholar get that help if they asked a co-worker to do the translation FOR THEM, and just stuck their name on it?
Agreed, and I still totally agree with what you said there. And I think it's a great step and something to point errant posters to. I think we're all after the same things here, but we're articulating it differently.

Yes, the forum is littered with such posts:

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...el-4175512113/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...te-4175517061/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...lc-4175517474/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...mp-4175516301/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ux-4175519902/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ed-4175512794/

I have to agree with TB0ne on this and I don't think "softly softly" does it. At the same time I've seen some forums where decent users fall foul of "zero tolerance" and where certain people abuse it in order to try and look clever (basically an "expert" with 5000 posts, the majority of which are chastisement and advice to use the search...).

I don't think staff, stickies or rules can resolve this - it's a culture thing and needs to come from the members themselves: firstly from those answering.

2 members found this post helpful.

I thought that one was valid, personally.

I would agree. I'd actually say most of those have been posted by members who genuinely want answers and would be willing to participate in a constructive manner.

--jeremy

I also have found myself posting less and less because of these threads asking that everything be done for the OP, judging by the content and tone of these posts it almost seems like tutors are directing their students here as though these foru,s were some kind of school help desk, many of these posters after being helped as much as we can seem to disapear and almost never contribute anything back to the forums.

Some of the posts are so pathetic that on occassion I have been tempted to post a sarcastic answer or an answer that borders on the brusque, "this is basic stuff look for the answer yourself!" etc etc, but if you do that then you get a mod on your case moaning that you are not being "welcoming" to new members, which just jars you off more so a you find youself posting less and less, unless somthing is done about this increasing culture of take take take give nothing back, more and more long term forum members will just disapear , I've noticed the lack of posts by a number of members that were very active when I first joined.

Sometimes like it or not the best answe IS RTFM!

1 members found this post helpful.

I feel it's important to point out that people using LQ along side their day jobs is OK. I use LQ occasionally and have asked questions when I see odd behavior in certain systems when I need help understanding. Other users have done the same I'm sure. I personally see no issue with this. LQ is a questions and answer site and many times the most interesting questions are those being posed with real world use behind them (such as ones from a day job).

It certainly helps when the questioners provide appropriate background information and due diligence research; which I feel is the main concern being raised here.

I agree, and certainly did not intend to say there was anything improper in seeking help with Linux problems in any context, professional or otherwise. After all, many (most?) members are computer/technology professionals and much of the knowledge offered here is from/to those members. This is all about sharing that knowledge.

But there is a great difference between sharing and being sucked dry without even the satisfaction of knowing that you have done a good deed!

What I had in mind was that some user's questions seem to repeatedly be simple pass-throughs by people performing jobs they are not qualified for, asking questions they do not understand, on behalf of people who think they are communicating with someone who has their answers. The image I would conjure up is that of someone answering their phone with, "IT Help Desk. Just one moment while I check my knowledge base...", as they type the question through to LQ, beginning with "Hey team, I have a problem for you!".

These seem to never learn, because they are not here to learn - they are here to perform their daily shift without thought or effort of their own. They seem utterly disinterested... because they are...

...similar thought in a different context.

Wow! I am very much heartened and impressed by the thoughtfulness others have put toward this topic. I can only hope that my own comments can be as useful as others that I have read here.

First, I am very happy (and happily not surprised) to see Jeremy taking such strong interest in these matters.

LQ represents a unique sub-community among what may be termed "social media", and especially among GNU/Linux and technology fora. The "greatness" of LQ is due in part to the membership, but that membership has coalesced in these precincts precisely because of the uniqueness of the fora and format conceived and guided by Jeremy. So thanks all around, but credit where due!

Ultimately, it is that very uniqueness, call it the "LQ culture" that is under discussion, and the thing that we seek to protect.

I started my day with the goal of trying to offer some useful thoughts in this thread. Through the day my ideas progressed through the outline notes stage, to wall of text and finally mind-numbing thesis... so I'll shelve most of it and formulate my comments around a few simpler ideas and snipped comments of others to follow (apologies if I snip with a different emphasis than the authors intended).

Yea, it is definitely a thorny dilemma, Catch-22, Gordian knot!

The very fact that you (and others) genuinely CARE about not being nasty to even the most offending posters is actually a prime expression of that unique community mentioned above. The posts we are referring to degrade what I have referred to as the "atmosphere" within which that unique community thrives, but responding to them with politeness and patience only seems to increase their intrusions. But becoming impatient and uncaring would also be the end of the LQ culture.

We are mostly all here precisely because we want to help others and share our own knowledge - especially with those eager to learn. And to (hopefully not mis-) quote Emerson as quoted by onebuck...

... so the endeavor is not entirely without its rewards.

But in the same measure that reciprocal sharing is rewarding for all, frequent one way "question answering" of the sort we are discussing (not sure how to even describe it) is unrewarding. That affects different people in different ways. For myself, as noted, I find that I mostly just begin to "stay away" - not a solution and not something I am happy with either.

I mostly agree that this is one underlying cause of this problem, and a few others.

Another example of Linux being the victim of its own success. How ever we may choose to express it, there are fundamental differences in philosophy and "culture" between those who have adopted GNU, Linux and the BSDs for their usefulness and/or for the freedom they provide, and the various refugees from other OS'es who come for vastly different reasons.

There is currently a large uptake of Linux from other quarters for various reasons and the result is a clash of those "cultures". The differences in approach and expectation between a "traditional" interested newbie and the "help desk" caller may be seen as a result of that philosophical difference.

It is as if the early arrivals to this new paradise planted their gardens, built their houses and lived together mostly in peace and unity. Eager to share their happiness and prosperity, they always welcomed new arrivals and shared their treasures freely with them. Then they began to arrive by the bus-load... then the railway built a station nearby... suddenly those beautiful gardens are being trampled and eaten by a growing herd that is oblivious to the "old" culture and only wants to know what time lunch is served!

It is a frustrating circumstance without a simple solution.

Build walls around our own garden?
Try to drive away the herds?
Corral the herd so we can leave the garden open?
Cull the herd?
Place new rules on the gardeners?

All just metaphorical musing with no real point, but this is the nature of the things to consider - all with potentially serious consequences for somebody...

2 members found this post helpful.

I pretty much agree with what cynwulf has said here, and wish I could have expressed it so succinctly!

It is a cultural thing. It is a clash between the "old culture" (not so much of Linux, but specifically the unique culture of LQ) the very thing we want to preserve, and the "help-desk" culture that has begun to arrive in increasing numbers.

As such, I don't think it can be effectively dealt with by "staff, stickies or rules", because the culture itself is much more than those things.

Rules and policies can foster a culture, and the current LQ rules are largely responsible for creating the atmosphere within which the existing LQ culture has thrived. But rule changes, however well intentioned, have a way of destroying the very thing they are supposed to protect! To the extent that the culture includes some important elements based around ideals of freedom (i.e. freedom from rules!), I think that introduction of new rules and significant rule changes would be very risky!

Ultimately, we are still talking about inter-personal communications, between human beings. And to "our" own credit (so long as we do not too narrowly define "our") current members of the now-mythical LQ culture have demonstrated an awareness of the problem and maintained a remarkably even keel under the circumstances (in my own opinion).

As such, each interaction is still best dealt with by the individuals involved - those choosing to answer such posts as cynwulf has pointed out. To this point I don't think anyone has seriously blown a gasket or made a really bad judgment call. The fact that we are having this discussion and exchanging our thoughts on how to best deal with the different situations is actually very encouraging, so I think we should continue with what works and feel our way forward carefully.

Now that some of us are openly talking about this "problem" after apparently thinking about it privately for some time, perhaps we could try to take note when these threads do arise and try to support, and maybe stabilize each other when needed. Perhaps a clear strategy will emerge once we all acknowledge and focus on the problem, one which preserves "our" culture, but not at someone elses' expense.

Hope that makes some sense.

And one final thought, if you will pardon my ramblings...

I expect that we are all in agreement with the concept that it is better to teach someone how to fish than to simply give them a fish.

But there are times when someone really just needs to eat and fishing lessons are of little benefit to someone wracked by hunger pains.

It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between the hungry and someone looking for a free meal, so it requires some judgment in each case. So I say we should generally err on the side of caution and continue to deliver the fish when it will make a difference...

With that I metaphorically, and philosophically end my day...

Did you skip to page two and note the post where it was obvious he had ignored much of the dialogue in the thread and just asked for a "step by step" walk through? If the slackbuilds.org page contains clear instructions on how to install a slackbuild, then I fail to see the need for a walk through.