Hey Guys,

I know that most of us, especially the more experienced ones would prefer to have qns posed in proper English, not using any of the techniques mentioned in the title.
I asked Jeremy about possibly amending the 'Use English' rule and he has asked me to start this thread

My point to Jeremy was that although we generally try to persuade new guys not to use txt speak, as one newbie pointed out recently in Newbies forum, its not actually in the rules(!) ... something I've noticed occasionally, but been to lazy to query until now

The new guy has a point; if it's not in the rules, we can't/shouldn't be too fierce about trying to enforce it.

My (modest) proposal is that we amend the English Rule or add a new new one to make it official policy not to use txt speak or similar.

@Jeremy; maybe you'd like to add a poll as well ?

Anyway, look forward to seeing the responses (& keep it clean/calm please)

Ahum...

But yes, I support the idea to add this to the LQ rules

jlinkels

I second that, but I personally would prefer an even stricter rule. Writing in text/SMS/leet speak does not only make posts harder to read, it is also making the posts more or less useless for a serious search through the forum. Some members like to make fun of everything that has a commercial touch, like Windoze, Micro$oft, ... .
This should be included in the rule, at least for the technical fora. If I am not the only one with this opinion.

What?


New LQ members often need to acclimatize. I think the LQ Community has proven it is capable enough to help them adjust, where necessary pointing to general rules of Netiquette. IMHO constructive, helpful peer moderation is the best way to achieve a result. I'd like to think about the LQR as covering only those issues we are required to enforce meaning topics and behaviour that (potentially) could damage LQ itself or the good atmosphere the LQ Community is known for. More rules do not necessarily improve quality. As always if the LQ Community isn't capable of helping a member adjust then moderators can help.

1 members found this post helpful.

Re 'qns' .. yeah realised after I posted, but decided to leave to show honesty
Please read as 'questions'
Thank you.

Also, I agree with TobiSGD re 'Windoze, Micro$oft', although I think reasonable abbreviations like MS or MSWin are fine.

@UnSpawn: I'm happy to go with the majority; I'm not that bothered either way, but having an actual rule would be simpler.

Are those just typographical errors or deliberate text speak?

I expect native English speakers to write properly but similar to the homework question how many members actually read the rules. For those non native English speakers that have difficulty writing it might be easier for us to understand their questions if they can use text speak.

Given that the rules serve as guidelines, I support such an addition. I'm certain it can be worded in a way that is not harsh. Perhaps something like:

1 members found this post helpful.

This I agree with but I believe General should be a place where people can relax a little. For example, a current thread in General 10 car garage has many abbreviations through it and people who know about cars are comfortable using those abbreviations. Things like GM for General Motors and ci for cubic inch or km/h for kilometres per hour are common yet are just the same as txt spk (text speak) in that they are abbreviations. So I think in technical fora yes correct English is a good idea. Just remember some people are not native speakers and there are at least 7 distinct versions of English not to mention regional variations within countries which can make enforcing such a rule extremely difficult if it is taken to far, and I have already been told by a young American lad on this site that I must have a great animosity to not want to be grammatically correct. The pathetic thing is he didn't even know the words I was using yet he was trying to correct me. Things like this, in General, are just a way to create an argument and don't we already have enough of them?

In pricinple, we can read text even if it is severely distorted.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

There is also an example of text where all vowels are removed while the text is still readable.

Still, we don't use that style for communication. Before being in favor of allowing SMS speak, it should be considered why we don't usually write like in the example above.

jlinkels

In principle you are right, but it still makes it difficult to read (especially for non-native English speakers) and impossible to use the search function in a proper way if we allow that kind of posts.

So that is why I am against using any derivatives of proper English language.

jlinkels

I agree with this too. While I understand the need to accommodate those who aren't native English speakers, it does make it hard to search for threads, and (in a lot of cases), makes it almost impossible to understand the question.
I must respectfully disagree with that statement. Grammatical errors/not knowing the right word is one thing...someone typing "pls" when they KNOW it's short-hand for "please" is another. Same with "any1", and other such things....the writer clearly knows the context and what words to put, but isn't.

Ok, so I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate here. Which means I'm sure to tick some people off. But before I do, I've never liked SMS/l33t-speak in messages. I find it personally annoying rather than anything else. Having said that, it's the perfect springboard into my devil's advocate business...

TobiSGD and TB0ne:
Both of you mentioned that this abbreviated writing adds a technical problem: problems searching for threads. I'm not sure I agree.

Do either of you have any examples? Most of the SMS/l33t-speak I have encountered is informal, personal abbreviation: "u" or "y" or "any1" or "qns" (and before the grammar nazis show up, serialized "or"s with no commas is a valid usage ). I cannot think of any search that would fail to yield reasonable results because of those abbreviations. They simply are not meaningful search terms. Nobody should be searching for "you" in regards to a Samba, partitioning, distribution selection, or some other technical question. 100% of the time "you" will be a useless search term. The user should be searching for something else.

Related to that, what are the chances that a responder would continue to exclusively use the same abbreviations? If a response in the thread uses proper, full names or commonly recognized abbreviations for the concepts/topics, there is no problem with searching at all. The responder's message will satisfy the user's search terms.

So, I just don't see "it'll break searching" as a legitimate concern. More likely, "break searching" is being offered as a way to avoid directly saying the real objection: that it's a subjective, personal-taste objection.



On another front, I think the Law of Internet Natural Selection is well-suited to this. If a user uses SMS/l33t-speak in their post, and the reading population doesn't like it, the readers should pass by the thread. Don't respond. End of story. If you respond with a solution, then the SMS/l33t-speak really doesn't bother you much. If you respond with nothing but "don't use SMS/l33t-speak" then you are arguably violating one of LQ's rules by posting a response with "nothing constructive."

If everyone follows that basic approach, the question asker is limiting his/her pool of available expertise by using the abbreviated text. If someone comes along that is comfortable with the SMS/l33t-speak and provides a reply, then so be it. Otherwise, the thread will languish and eventually be archived (preferrably deleted because a no-answer question is a waste of space).

If a user is incapable of walking away from a thread with SMS/l33t-speak, invests the time to decipher the text, determines the solution, posts a response, and then complains about the SMS/l33t-speak in a thread such as this, then the problem isn't with the SMS/l33t-speak--it's with the user. What the user is really upset with is their obsessive-compulsive nature to answer any-and-all questions.



Again, I don't like SMS/l33t-speak in messages. But I have walked away from threads I could answer. Sometimes I walk away because the message is too hard to read because of SMS/l33t-speak, (lack of) punctuation, or any number of other things. We are all volunteers. Exercise your right to walk away--they'll live. I promise.

The amount of existing rules, and the way they are getting handled, is the main reason i am not here anymore
(you might wonder why i know about the thread. I will tell you: someone pointed me to it).

Free speech (as the most basic form of freedom) is just a silly dream in the Linux world, it seems.
And no, i don't like leet speak. That is not the point.

I for one am out here.

Define proper English. What particular version do you want everyone to use? Received Pronunciation? East London English? BBC English? Estuarine English (from the Thames Valley)? Scottish English? Australian English? American English? I can keep going but I am just trying to show there is no universally proper English and what is spoken/written in one English speaking country can be difficult to understand in another.