homework response
 

What about having a "homework lock"?

A very common pattern is the member who posts a homework question and is never heard from again.

Common responses are to ask the OP to describe the question in more detail, discuss what test they use in class, and aks them to post the work they have done to date.

The homework lock would lock out any further replies--except from the OP. Thus, in all cases where the OP never posts again, the thread would stay locked, bandwidth would be saved, and the student would be protected from all the good samaritans that offer help when they really shouldn't.

This same tool could be used in any thread where the original post does not contain enough information to allow a response.

This seems in general like quite a good idea, but I'm just not sure of the exact mechanism by which various things would happen.

I'm assuming that the way this would work is that a thread gets reported as a homework thread, or a mod decides it is a homework thread, a mod intervenes to lock it. Presumably then the OP can submit extra details and it will be unlocked automatically, or they can appeal to the mods and say 'maybe it loked like homework, but it wasn't really' and the mods then adjudicate.

(It seems to me that this is quite a common occurence; the OP denies that it was homework really; in part, I think this is understandable as anyone who is self-studying will tend to generate a few questions that they don't classify as homework; but to everyone else it 'walks like a duck and quacks like a duck'.)

Presumably (this is a guess, tell me if I'm wrong...) you mean that if the OP replied, the thread would become unlocked again (automatically?, if a mod intervenes?).

On a side issue, wouldn't it be good in the 'report thread' dialogue to have a couple of buttons for, eg, 'report as cross post' (the most common, imho) and 'report as homework' that would enable the message to the mods to contain the appropriate flag in its title and save the reporter time?

Does it really save much bandwidth? I keep up-to-date via RSS and the RSS feeds still go out for locked threads (maybe before the lock comes in - haven't checked that). If you browse threads via the web, is it clear that a particular thread is locked?

(Even if it doesn't save all that much bandwidth, it still seems like a good idea to me.)

In general I like the idea, especially for homework. For incomplete info., I'd be more lenient -- the OP might still trigger a useful discussion. I don't think that bandwidth is as much an issue as playing by the rules. Particularly the part about:
However, I'll bet that this would be too much additional work for the mods.

There are 2 types of homework thread: the "bad one" which just posts the question and asks/demands an answer. And the "good one" where the poster shows their workings and asks us to fill in a blank in their understanding. Obviously, the second one needs to be encouraged. Also, we have no way to guard against someone who posts once and then disappears.

The best bet is to report the thread and ask for a mod interpretation.

After I posted this, I thought that it was really applicable to any thread in which the information was so incomplete that there was no way to proceed unless the OP responded with follow-up.

Here is one way to do it relatively simply:

1. The gross homework threads (eg cut and paste) should be closed outright---the mods already have this discretion.

2. Anything that clearly needs more info (not just homework) could be locked by any member above a certain rank (not just mods).

3. With a bit of coding, it would not be hard to automatically unlock any thread when the OP posts follow-up. If not made automatic, then the same group with lock privileges could also have UNlock privileges.

I don't disagree with XavierP's practical observations. But, the "one-posters" do eat up a lot of bandwidth and member's time.

Another much simpler option:
Any new thread that looks like a one-poster (including the gross homework) could simply be closed by a mod with a note to the OP to send e-mail to have it re-opened.

Doesn't that raise the point that the second is just as against the rules as the first (although is given more discretion)?

For me, anyone who simply reproduces a question that they have been asked, without any sign of thought on their part, doesn't deserve an answer. OTOH, anyone who asks a question that they've obviously thought about (e.g., 'I've understood this bit, but just can't get my head around this other bit'... or 'I've googled for x but it doesn't come up with anything relevant') is more worthy of spending time on.

OK, this is a bigger change; it seems to me that the majority of posts don't have enough info, as originally posted. The decision that responders take is whether the situation is best handled by a "You've told me enough to answer this bit, but you haven't told me enough to answer this bit" answer and a "come up with a whole load more information, or I won't bother" one. At present, the situation is open for everyone to make their own judgement call on that, and yours will probably be different from mine.

The situation changes if many people can block threads and whether this a good or a bad thing is still open to question. That would reduce the bandwidth and would reduce the noise (both good), but it might just be restrictive enough to make the whole thing unworkable.

On a related subject, why do so many people seem to post without reading the forum rules? It should be obvious that homework is verboten, but that still gets posted as do occasional 'help me break the security of my employer's computers' requests.

You'd think that if people had read the rules and were trying to slip these under the radar, they'd at least be making an effort to disguise what they are doing? (Not that doing that would be a big advantage for the forum...)

I think the LQ Community itself does a great deal of regulating as most copy 'n paste OP's usually attract the right amount of response to make the poster realise elaborating or rethinking strategy is in order. (And the ones that don't probably aren't LQ member material anyway) I strongly disagree that closing threads for reasons of the possibility of the OP being a one day fly or the OP not containing enough nfo fits the open and friendly atmosphere LQ is known for. Remember there are reasons why Jeremy granted us use of those privileges. We moderators are here to help people along, and in line with what LQ stands for this should much more call for gentle nudging along and fostering discussion, not slamming the lid on members noses. Extending those responsabilities to "helpers" and allowing them to lock threads will allow for more eyeballs and more policing but in the end will not help solve the problem.


They don't use more bandwidth compared to others, unless you are counting things as an investment. In that case you're right unless a correct answer was posted to that thread. Sure we'd rather see members who stay on to not only receive but also provide help, but in the case an answer is provided the thread will be complete, will be found as a "good answer" through searchengines and in the end serve its purpose promoting LQ as knowledgebase. Locking and whatever else kind of greylisting-type of thing slows down or completely prevents completion of that process. That does not serve LQ IMNSHO.


Not that drive-by slash copy 'n paste posting isn't an issue, but with what LQ stands for right now, the way we are progressing and what issues could be prioritised given n amount of effort, and with all due respect but surely there are more important things one [c|sh]ould champion?..

This is my point. If someone just copy/pastes a set of questions and says "help me", they would get the same response from me as if they sat next to me with an open text book: which bit don't you understand because I'm not doing it all for you.

If, on the other hand, the question is phrased as "I get that the first part of the question should mean that X would happen, but the second part is the bit I'm stuck on - how can I do that part?" I would help.

As with all questions on LQ, showing your workings is a good thing - there is nothing more frustrating than to offer advice on ly to be told each time that the poster has already tried that. If you explain what you've done already and the outcome it makes my, and everyone else's, job easier. It also means that anyone using the thread as a reference gets a noce potted history early on which may help them solve their own problems.

My perspective comes from looking at where my time goes. My LQ participation is squeezed into various fragments of free time and I am always looking for ways to be more efficient.

For me, the one-posters (including homework) are a major time waster. I have spent significant time trying to help people who never follow up to requests for clarification, etc. I still think there might be some kind of simple solution to this.......

I don't think that'll be huge improvement, and I don't think it'll be useful. Homework lock might prevent some people from wasting their time, but on other hand it'll prevent other people picking up same tread if their question is similar. So value of this feature is questionable. Besides, how "homework lock" is supposed to be removed? Looks like it'll require attention from moderators, which is not good.

The follow-up still might be something like "hey, guys will you help me, pleeeease? it'z urgent!!!". So it'll require attention of people, which, in my opinion, makes this feature useless.

The points I was trying to make were:

• I'm with the general scheme
• I draw the line in a slightly different place from a strict reading of the rules, which would ban responses to all homework questions (as, seemingly, do you), but I think I'm going with the intention rather than the letter of the law
• Someone with a different interpretation of the intent will clearly feel that I'm breaking the law

You will probably also be aware that there seems to be one user who is indeed reading through a textbook and every day or two he comes up with a bit he doesn't understand and his posts start 'I've read this in a book...Is it correct/What do you think'.

One day the sarcastic part of me will get control and he will get the answer "Congratulations, the news that you have learnt to read is inded a surprise", because I find this pretty much as irritating as homework, but it isn't caught by a homework rule.

Combatting laziness and egotistical behaviour with more policing just seems disproportionate to me...

I´d like to suggest that the moderators think of selecting some additional help.

I also agree with unSpawn and XavierP un the drive by slash and burn posting¨ issue.


How ever you have to remember that certian members of the community here at LQ either Work for a living , go to school, Teach or participate in other activities including philanthropic intrests and advocacy of open source and alternatives to Windows mr.ninety opercent¨ and microsofts slash and burn attitude towards alternative operating systems and applications both on tghe desktop and in the Data center ¨Server farms¨ across the united states and world.

Would this problem not be better solved by locking the posters account, not the thread? What I would like to see is a mechanism where the mods could block an account from creating new threads until all old ones w/ incomplete info. have had the requested info. provided.

Although I haven't noticed one recently, & so would be hard pressed to name an instance, I do occasionally come across a poster who seems cluelessly abusive of the LQ community. -- I check his/her posting history & find a pattern of incomplete info., failure to answer requests for additional data, & multiple threads on the same subject. Currently, the only thing I can do is ignore the [S|D]OB. IMNRHO, the clutter of their theads, the mental bandwidth, is more important than the physical.

Is there any way this kind of behavior could be made reportable? I.E. added to the list of reportable behavior.

What would be the unforeseen consequences of the "account locking" I am proposing?


I doubt that the physical bandwidth is that much of an issue to LQ. (Jeremy ???)

I think the bigger issue is persuading the good samaritans to not encourage the starters of "bad" homework threads.

I agree that any thoughtful Q (a la Raymond & Moen), homework or not, deserves an answer.

How about tagging things with an icon - like those thumbs-up and thumbs-down ones? A dungheap icon would ruin the look of the site; maybe a black hole icon would do - or a skull and crossbones - or just a big red 'X'. That way anyone who really wants to waste time can still look and respond. I think it's fun coming up with useless answers to homework questions.