That's the way I usually do it.

...maybe, but it is against the rules...if the mods are happy taking all the flak for getting involved in this, then I will be happy to just report, rather than comment. Some OPs react anything-but-well to getting something other than a direct answer, although the ones that do react by abusing people who tell them to stay within the rules and/or spirit do not tend to be the ones who hang around, in the slightly longer term, so maybe these drive-by posters aren't really an issue.

This is indeed useful, and probably should happen more (actually, I can only really recall one mod who does this frequently, and maybe the others ought to be encouraged to do it a bit more).

True. I was drifting off topic a bit, but if an outcome of this level of discussion is that something should go in as an improvement suggestion, I'd be prepared to take that on. If it isn't, it isn't. (But I reserve the right to have my own idea of what would be constructive, even if everyone else does want to be wrong....)

This is true, but maybe it shouldn't be. It might be possible to give a bit more emphasis on sign-up to the community aspect, and the 'deal' on offer: You play your part, as part of the community and get free help. You do stuff that is destructive to community spirit, cohesion and usefuleness and don't.

You seem to be taking a 'breaking the rules in titles is fine, breaking the rules in the post body is bad, bad, bad' attitude that seems a bit odd to me. After all, if others are to get value from the forums, the first thing that are likely to do (ok, should do) is to search to see whether a thread already exists that concerns their issue and they are likely to start by looking for titles - I think searching for tags is more of an advanced approach.

So, if titles are poor, the usefulness of the forum decreases.

OK, you got me, I was trying point up the 'thing' for 'think' (I think, or maybe, thing) without being in any way insulting. It didn't work.

I think that you just need to note that we all need to give some consideration to the fact that not everyone here will be a native speaker of anything other than binary... Me, I'm translating from octal.


re: GIYF
Well, the least insulting -and slightly amusing- interpretation is to read it in a Mr T voice, with 'Google it yourself, Fool'. I think most will take a more aggressive interpretation of that 'F', and this could start something of an F-war, which is worth avoiding, if possible.

In the default mode, this is likely to be seen as insulting, and often needs to be leavened with a little humour; there is a slightly less insulting method (append something like &n), but I didn't get that to work when I tried it. I also didn't get it to work with the linux-specific Google domain, which would have been nice, but you can use 'linux' as one of the search terms.

It can be used, but only with care.

Simon, is it possible to suggest that you re-post the original with all the corrections to spelling incorporated, so that it is possible to comment the new, improved version? My impression is that you should be good to go with hardly any more enhancements.

WRT to bad titles - if they are poor, report them. It takes a minute or so for a mod to change it and we barely break a sweat doing it. The best thing to do is for one (1) person to post and explain why their title is no good and to say that they have reported it for a title change. There is no need for anyone else to post on that particular subject and all following posts should then be trying to help the OP.

Similarly, if a post doesn't have enough information then feel free to request it from the OP. What we need to stop is the dogpiling instinct - whenever a post is titled "Urgent" around 10 people dive in to mock the OP. This is not something that helps to encourage new posters.

Wow, I didn't know you could report that kinda thing. From now on, I'll make sure I do that.

That is pretty much what I hoped people would take away from that section - perhaps someone can suggest a clearer wording?

Yeah - thats part of what the wider issues bit is about. It would be nice to inlist the answerers into promoting community spirit, however, I feel that those that are likely to want to do this do it anyway. Experienced members can lead by example here.

OTOH: a sticky thread discussing "answerer" tactics, techniques and ethics may be a useful place to explore these sorts of issues.

I'm not - see above. Perhaps that part is not clear enough - suggest alternate wording.

Titles are not as important as they were when I wer't yungun. These days the mouseover ext gives the gist quite often and the search function defaults to "search entire posts". Still, the weight given to titles does mean that it is better for useful questions to have good ones. Mostly I wanted to discourage piling on the poor newbie.

Why, when I wer't lad, we had to crawl over broken glass to search the forums - and we wer glad of t'exercize!

That is my thinking too. I'll have another look over it later this week - I'm supposed to be writing a term paper on Information Literacy and Education. Of course, there is nothing wrong with you copying the entire thing to a text file, spellchecking, then pming it to me?

I'll have a go at a few bits and pieces, but I'd still rather have a read through the final version - I have no idea which of the typos you have already done something about, and if I just fix the typos in a non-final version, some will get lost...they always do.

The site - the mods - all of us, can't have it all ways; the egregious bad title is either a legitimate technique for piquing interest, and unpleasant for those of us who want to cling on to the belief that we are building a database of answers that will have some long-term worth, but something that we have to put up with. Alternatively it is an abuse, and needs to be corrected.

I'd favour the latter, although it does feel like swimming upstream, but the former feels like going with the flow. I suppose I'd be happier if people were only defying common sense and not doing the opposite of what they were told in the sign-up instructions. So, if we were going to allow it, I'd be happier if it weren't against the specific instructions, but I hope that it doesn't come to that.

In spite of the information given on sign-up, some posters make suboptimal title choices (I hate the fact that I've just written suboptimal non-ironically; but I couldn't, in this context, write crap...maybe 'less good'). In particularly bad cases, to help the OP get the right kind of attention to their post, point out the the OP that their choice of title has not helped and report the thread for a change to a more suitable title.

If a thread has already been reported for a title change, further replies should be confined to constructive ones to the issues raised in the body of the thread.

Up to a point; if, for example, you get informed about new thread via the RSS service, this doesn't make any difference. And mouse-over gives roughly the first phrase from the post.

Now this does raise the issue that not enough emphasis is given to 'get a problem statement into the first sentence/paragraph' and why. Perhaps adding a paragraph to 'asking smart questions' would be a good idea.

In order to get attention from those who mouse-over the thread, or get their updates via RSS, it is helpful to get a clear problem statement and what needs to be different for you to consider the situation cured, in the earliest part of the post.

So:
bad (& I don't just mean my abuse of QUOTE tags)

better; actually states the problem and the desired outcome at the head of the message.

or
.

No, tags shouldn't actually be here, but in the 'asking questions' one, but, in an ideal world, the two should go together like a hand and a glove. So, if all of those asking questions follow the 'asking questions' one and those replying follow the replying one, all will always be sweetness and light...and you'll never get cr*pped on by any of the flying pigs.

I've probably given in to the temptation to 'rag' over bad titles too much, but when you see a title selection that is beyond stupid, it is difficult to respond constructively. After all, on sign up, site newbies are specifically told not to do this, it doesn't correspond to common sense, and yet it still happens.

...broken glass...'aving limbs...tha' were lucky...

If that is my only choice, I'll do it. But, I'd rather work on the partly corrected file that you already have. This isn't just laziness on my part -I'll admit that it is partly laziness- but that kind of workflow, where several people try to correct an original document in parallel and then hope that the corrections somehow merge isn't very successful compared to a sequential one.

(sounding oddly like Homer Simpson) you could pm me with your most up-to-date version

Guys - official LQ statement: Bad Titles = Baaaaaaaad Titles. To illustrate, do a thread search for "help" or for "urgent". Bad titles make searching very very hard. Good Titles = Goooooood!! Doubleplusgood, in fact. Not looking for huge amounts of tech in a title, but a basic short description, as in "Issued "rm -rf /" as Root, System No Longer Boots", is far better than "Heeellllppp, broke puter not work". Do you see?

For the purposes of an answering question tutorial, ignore tags altogether. They are irrelevant to answering. They are designed to stop people double posting really - if you have a software/hardware question, pick a forum and use the other as a tag. But they aren't involved in question answering.

To summarise: bad titles no, good titles yes. Tags irrelevant. Broken glass for wimps, we 'ad t' swim 4 mile through battery acid.

That is all.

I'm sure we all see...the only difference of opinion was whether it was bad, but, in practice, we had to put up with it, and extract a price in 'ragging' or whether we should automatically report it for a fix. I am very happy with the official clarification, thanks.


...battery acid, we used to dream o' battery acid... where is BrianL, he's a real Yorkshireman, isn't he?

Here is my opinion on the bad title and question descriptor conversation.


Why?

When you make a thread, it clearly states what makes a title good and appropriate, and what makes a title bad and irrelevant. LQ rules ask for a good title and correct spelling with proper grammar. No one expects perfection. But when someone tries to do their best with it, it's fine. With the advent of Google Translate, I fail to see why someone who speaks another language can't punctuate and spell correctly in their own language, and translate it with a click of a button (or two). In fact, I feel that a bad title conveys the message that the person does not really care. It's just forum, and even general Internet etiquette. It's clearly documented with just a Google search of "How to ask a question on a forum," what a person should do when formulating and formatting their query. Even Microsoft acknowledges 'netiquette.' Jeremy, the moderators and all the people on LQ do their best to illustrate this point (sigs, articles, threads, documentation, links), and I feel this is clear. And like XavierP said, it makes finding an archived answer impossible, when the title is irrelevant to the rest of the thread. I mean, why should we care, if you don't care enough to adequately describe your situation? It doesn't make sense. When I ask someone something here on LQ, it's because I am looking for an answer or idea which I could not find myself on the Internet. Whatever happened to a please and thank you, or maybe just a nice hello? We are taking our own good time to help someone. Simon Bridge helped me with a sdX naming scheme the other day, and I cared about that. So, when someone, by the way they ask their question, clearly violates LQ rules and etiquette and general manners, should be, and deserves, whatever flaming he gets. I followed LQ etiquette, and respect and thank Simon for giving his time to me to solve the problem. When someone is blatantly rude to you, you don't help them. Why would you? They didn't care about you, they conveniently forgot to abide by rules, and decided that being nice and properly doing the things we ask for is not needed. But they did spam our forum. They decided that was good enough. They figured they'd get an answer with that pathetic attempt at a thread. It makes me outright mad sometimes, and I think it does for others too, so I believe it's our right to say what we feel. For someone to say:-
it's just a slap in the face...


And I also dislike the "direct" question description 'thing' as well. Perhaps, in defence of those who mouse-over and use RSS feeds, you can suggest using some sort of a preemptive overview; or maybe a general question summary to facilitate the needs of those users. But I feel that when someone outlines their story as it was, that I can physically put myself in their position and identify with not only their question, but their experience as well, and format a reply much better and easier for that person to understand. I can identify with them on a certain level and better understand the message that they are trying to convey. And again, when someone takes the time to not only describe their problem, but also their situation, I always reply to them first because they showed the care to conform to the LQ etiquette standard, yet still get across the fact this is a most frustrating experience and that they desire help quickly, in a responsible, adult manner. After all, we are people, and at least I feel that when someone tells the whole story of what happened, I am more inclined to help that person, because I can feel, to a degree, what their problem is and why it's so pressing. So I feel that this should be encouraged, not frowned upon/ignored/avoided.

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to read my opinion.

In terms of everyone jumping in to beat on a bad title, imagine the forums as a conversation. Now imagine that you didn't fully form your query and everyone jumped on you for it - how long would you want to remain in the conversation? The best way to deal with it is for the first responder to point out why the title or post is "bad" and then we should all move on and try to help the person. Also, report the title and suggest a better one. We don't need to be bullying new members or people who don't understand why text speak isn't a good idea.

And BrianL is a Lancastrian from Lancashire, not a Yorkshireman. Never, ever ever mix them up. There is a reason for the white rose/red rose distinction you know

In the best of all possible worlds, newbie posters would read the instructions ---------- and actually follow them. Also, I would never wake up feeling bad again, especially on days when the first post I see on LQ has the title: "heeellllppp mmmeeeee!!!!!". Unfortunately, newbies are newbies, and I have a chronic illness, so neither of those conditions are going to be true except some of the time. I'm not trying to discourage this thread or the author's efforts, but I am saying that a grain of salt might need to be thrown at the effort.

And I will say that it's annoying that there is not a lot of uniformity among the moderators. Some will change a title while some won't and will chastise you for complaining. Some will lock an egregiously bad thread while others will insist that it play itself out. There. I've had my say and I feel better.

Sounds like vi vs. emacs, only nicer...

Thanks damgar, it's the opinion and support of others that keeps me going. And the fact that I've been teaching 1 on 1 to several people over the years.

Kind regards,

Eric

Depends on the personality of the person in my opinion, I've given up smoking over a year ago, just like that, at a moment when I was smoking about 40 cigarettes a day. Has only affected my wardrobe (had to buy bigger pants to cover the belly).

Kind regards,

Eric

Sorry to disappoint you