I don't see this (or do it). I watch all new posts and reply if I can add something.

But--in the end--The OP is responsible for the quality of help he/she gets. If there is something spurious posted, then the OP can reply as appropriate.

You've just totally scared me by that thought. It'd be almost like a society of Vulcans (maybe), except *somehow* it's possible to be perfectly logical and still stupid..

Well, I never expected a quick rant to get so much attention!

My own practice is only to post a reply if I really know the answer, or if no-one else has replied and the OP is likely to prefer a guess to total silence. As a perfectionist I feel very embarrassed if I get it wrong, and I would be ashamed to reply without reading the whole post.

Smoker: I'm sorry if I gave offence, and I did not intend to do so. I note that you and Catkin have the best thanks to posts ratios of the members in this thread, so you've obviously made a valuable contribution here.

I agree with you. Additionally, I often decide not to post a maybe indirectly useful reply when there are no other replies yet, because I don't want to take away the zero reply status. Some of those indirectly useful replies might have been useful. I'd like a way to post

I'm guilty of that fairly often, and I don't think it is necessarily wrong.

I think it is worth having a control to mark a thread as "no constructive answers yet". Then have it included when you look for zero reply threads.

The OP ought to have that option at any time (subject to some kind of moderator override if abused).

I'd also like a way for someone to post an aside rather than an answer to any thread that is in a zero reply or no constructive reply state and specify that post not take away the zero reply status. But maybe I'm the only one who would want such a thing.

Often yes. But there are enough exceptions that I think the problem deserves attention.

Really ???

Is that even supposed to be policy here? "Disciplined" for posting a lot of useless or wrong answers?

I don't want to name a name here. Take a look at some of the programming, especially asm programming threads where I have posted answers. You'll see a lot of wrong answers from the same few people. You'll see one person posting an overwhelming number of wrong answers, often as the first reply.

That's just life in a forum. I can't imagine that it should be policy for moderators to try to fix that.

But there should be some tools to help limit the damage.

I reply if I think I can help...This could mean:
---clarifying the question
---showing the OP where/how to find the answer
---supplying the answer
AND--not as rare as you might guess:
---suggesting why the OP has asked the wrong question

More generally:
OP: "How do I" something_stupid
A1: "Why do you want to" something_stupid

I think that is the most constructive first reply. I've made that first reply and plan to continue doing so. Usually the OP is confused and asking the wrong question and the answer to "why" is needed in order to give constructive information. Sometimes the OP is on the right track and has a good reason to do the thing that sounds stupid to an expert, and the answer to "why" is probably still needed because it narrows the set of possible answers to those that fit the purpose.

Something like that would really help. I think it is a real enough problem to deserve some attention.

I never know whether the OP will prefer my guess or my minor clarification to total silence. So if I don't have some confidence that I have a good answer, I usually wait for someone to post a useless answer before I post my guess or minor clarification.

For example:

1. Wrong reason

A: How do I install Internet Explorer on fedora?
B: Why do you want to install IE on fedora? It's a windows program?
A: Yes, I know but I don't like firefox.
B: Install Opera, etc

2. Good reason

A: How do I install Internet Explorer on fedora?
B: Why do yo want to install IE on fedora?
A: I want to check if my website works in IE.
B: Ok, you need to use wine, etc....

Yes -- the zero-reply system cuts both ways. One way, the extra attention and auto bump are helpful to the OP. The other way, it does happen that people hold off replying for a day or so and then reply and that reply leads the OP quickly to a solution. In this way the zero-reply system has delayed the soltion for a day or so.

A possible workaround is to PM the OP and, if that does lead to useful dialog, update the thread. Never done it; just an idea; does feel a bit contrary to the open and "in public" spirit of LQ.

1 members found this post helpful.

i admit i'm guilty of replying with the 'i've never done this..' type of reply, however when i do this it's because even though i may not know the specifics i have enough general knowlege of the task to point the OP in the right direction to find the answer themselves, personally i don't think there is anything wrong with that

posting on a forum is purely on a volunteer basis, unless you are paying for membership or directly paying those who reply i don't see why anyone has a right to grip about imprecise answer, at least someone is TRYING to help even if it isn't the best answer, unless the reply is outright derogatory a partial answer is better then none

secondly the OP doesn't always know what information is necessary to provide so sometimes asking for further details is necessary, in which case the op shouldn't just brush it off as being unhelpful that is also wrong too, and yes i know there are noobs out there that don't know HOW to post the correct info so dont be shy, reply and ASK how

This is a very valid point. I have responded in at least a few threads where people were attempting to do something unwise (or complaining about the system keeping them from doing it). I try to first see their point (like "why can't I log in as root") and provide an answer ("try using sudo, try setting the password for the root user, set flag X to value Y in config file Z"), and also explain why this may not be the best thing to do.

Sometimes it works. Often it doesn't.

The problem with the zero reply vs non-zero reply threads really comes down to people not marking them as solved. I frequently come in to look at threads, see something with 5 or 6 replies and not one single response from the OP. Was it abandoned? Hard to say.
There is an awful lot of noise and repeated questions, especially with regards to Linux. Maybe they just never came back

I think there is more to it than that.

A thread may be in a state of constructive dialog. Or it may not yet have had anyone that can answer constructively look at it.

At LQ, we seem to use the zero reply status as the main indicator that no one that can answer constructively has looked at it yet. But that is taken away if someone that can't answer constructively has answered.

So the essence of the problem is the need to request new readers for a thread and/or "fresh start" a sidetracked thread.

If a thread is in a meaningful dialog, hopefully no one would press a request new readers button. If the OP went away and doesn't care anymore, hopefully no one would press a request new readers button.

If such a feature were used reasonably and was connected to the zero reply threads feature (or something similar) then those who want to find and help the unanswered questions could more easily do so.

If it were occasionally used unreasonably, it should be easy for the moderators to override. Compare with following the alternative poster strategy:

If you think your thread has been seriously sidetracked by off topic or useless posts, I think it is reasonable to start a new thread with a summary of the problem and a link back to the old thread for any useful context that might be there. (I would also tack a link forward onto the old thread in case the new one provides the answer that someone might search for in the old one).

If someone did that just to regain zero reply status after a useless first reply, I expect some moderator would override that abuse and merge the topic back together again.

So I think there should be a half measure version of that available, not as drastic as starting a new thread, but enough to get some new attention.

1 members found this post helpful.

Although I "understand" the asking why method...I still have a slight (small p) problem with it...

I always subscribe to the "just answer the question" MO...

If someone wants to rsh into a machine as root over the internet...I tell them how...I also send a warning...but isn't the fun of learning is suffering though the "oops" in life?



-C

No, it's not. What's the "fun" in deliberately answering a question in a way that you know is just going to cause problems for the questioner?

Not saying that I wouldn't give a warning...you are misconstruing my post.

I am saying...sometimes I just want an answer...not a lecture. Sometimes I know it comes with the territory of asking a question. But this can get annoying.

I answer the question with a warning...because it saves post after post of "why do you want to do this? are you sure you want to do this? have you tried this?"

It's almost like a windows dialog box...sometimes it feels like: YES I'M SURE SO STOP ASKING



-C

Well. I'd rather do a sanity check first - especially on a new and/or unknown user - than have to go through the pain of cleaning up after them. While running random commands and doing strangely dangerous things is always fun, whoever does them has to accept responsibility for the upcoming disaster this will cause. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen.

So while running as root on your first ever Linux box may sound fun and awesome, cleaning up the rootkits and security breaches is not. Sanity checks are good!