guru's infected threads - I am voting against reputation system

Originally Posted by dugan I don't know about anyone else, but when I hit 5K posts my first thought was not "Cool! I'm a Guru!". It was "I need to rethink my life." LinBox, it really doesn't matter whether the people you describe exist or not. People who choose not to be part of a discussion have chosen not to be part of that discussion, and the correct thing to do is to respect that choice. If they choose not to share their reasons for not participating, then you don't know what their reasons are and it is irresponsible to speculate, no matter how well-reasoned your speculation may be. If you want our decision making to take their perspective into account, then we need to hear from them directly. Claiming that you know how they feel because you STUDY PSYCHOLOGY isn't good enough. Note that your "I know these people exist because I STUDY PSYCHOLOGY but by definition I can't find a single one!" angle isn't very compelling. If this needs to be spelled out to you, then you clearly don't understand psychology (which makes heavy use of statistics and does its best to use scientific methodology) as well as you think.

I respect this.

Look up introverts. They are not very comfortable in crowds (intimidated by them).

Here is some interesting videos and reading if you are interested:

http://www.psychologyconcepts.com/ca...logy-concepts/

Who else is looking forward to bumping this thread when igadoter reaches 5000 posts?

This says it all.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus OP: How can I configure my system to automatically boot as root without password? guru: That is a very bad idea. Here are some links to information explaining why. OP: Stop digressing and answer my question. [OP has control of the thread (question), so deletes the "offending" answer, thinking "Damn gurus wanting to educate their equals, instead of answering the questions asked."] Originally Posted by igadoter I would add the following to my signature: stop protect people from doing mistakes ! In my opinion OP was right in your example. Question was quite clear. Hm, but maybe there is compromise: to answer OP question and to point that it is very bad idea.

An example of educating someone by referring them to documentation so they will learn not to try something really stupid is digression that interferes with the person's right to do something stupid in ignorant bliss. No wonder he is complaining about the conduct of forum members.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I respect this. Look up introverts. They are not very comfortable in crowds (intimidated by them). Here is some interesting videos and reading if you are interested: http://www.psychologyconcepts.com/ca...logy-concepts/

Introvert, like any other label, is not a one-size-fits-all.

Speaking as someone that's been identified as an introvert for my entire life, I am not intimidated by crowds. That implies being timid or fearful.

I don't like crowds, but it's not because of intimidation. It's because I find them to be draining. The explanation I was given was that introverts expend energy in social situations and extroverts gain energy from them. It's not about fear, but rather has to do with where a person gets their energy and where they expend it.

As a matter of fact, I often find crowds comforting. If I have to be around people, and it's not those few that I'm close to, then I'd rather be in a crowd. Whether it's a social situation or a meeting at work, in a small group, silence is noticed, so I feel pressure to talk whether I have something to say or not. That is intimidating to me.

As far as the guru labels, post counts, and reputation bars are concerned, I don't notice them because I don't care about them. I care about the content of posts and pay very little attention to anything outside of that box. I do notice posting styles, and through that have learned some of the names, but I judge the posts by the usefulness of the information and not based on anything in the little box to left.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I am very confident in my self education in psychology and know for a fact I am talking about a group of people.

The level of confidence you have in your self-learning is irrelevant, and based on what I am about to write, I am inclined to believe your level of expertise is fairly low.

If there is a small number of people who are too intimidated to join the board, simply stating they exist and asserting the board should be changed to accommodate them is not enough. Data is required.

If the intimidated people are one-fifth of every 1000 lurkers, then changes to the board to attract those people could be considered.

If for every 1000 lurkers there are half-a-dozen intimidated people, it would be foolish to make changes to attract such a small number of people and risk driving away current members.

Without data to support your argument, your argument is empty.

Originally Posted by igadoter I would add the following to my signature: stop protect people from doing mistakes ! In my opinion OP was right in your example. Question was quite clear. Hm, but maybe there is compromise: to answer OP question and to point that it is very bad idea.

You are right, if people want to do their own mistakes and learn from and then so they should. But that freedom stops where it may harm other people. Server admins that get bruted forced or DDOSed by botnets and their mail servers bombarded by spam will have a very different opinion on "let's people make their own mistakes without telling them what may happen". This is a perfect example why sometimes education beyond the original question, in this case education about the consequences, can be a very good thing, even if it is a distraction from the narrow focus of the original question.

Originally Posted by igadoter Once 'guru', 'LQ veteran', 'green & greener' would post this, thread is over, it is intimmidating not only for OP, but for any other would be posters, who actually would have better understanding of OP question, say they met similar question in the past.

I remember my time when I was a newbie on LQ. I still remember
how happy I used to be when I used to find that a guru has
replied to my post. The reason for happiness was that the guru
had experience (indicated by his post count) and I could use his
experience to solve my problem quickly.

So, whenever the guru used to tell me to search Google with
the said keywords I would do it immediately because my
intention is/was to solve my problem, not to stroke my ego.

As I mentioned before there was only 1 guru who used to "shout"
and thus frighten me.

In your thread, I can see that Dugan and others have replied
in a most polite manner. There is no reason to be frightened.

Instead of wasting your time in this thread, you should take
advantage of their knowledge and solve your problem, and get a
dog to stroke your ego.

But no, you are here 'the guardian' of high-quality. You wouldn't let go OP it's own 'stupid' way.

Indeed, because LQers stand to maintain the quality that is the
reason this forum is most respected forum on the Internet
regarding Linux, IMO.

Originally Posted by LinBox2013 I am very confident in my self education in psychology

You must be familiar with the work of Dunning and Kruger. I'm sure everybody would love you to explain it in the context of this thread.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD You are right, if people want to do their own mistakes and learn from and then so they should. But that freedom stops where it may harm other people. Server admins that get bruted forced or DDOSed by botnets and their mail servers bombarded by spam will have a very different opinion on "let's people make their own mistakes without telling them what may happen". This is a perfect example why sometimes education beyond the original question, in this case education about the consequences, can be a very good thing, even if it is a distraction from the narrow focus of the original question.

I am still thinking that removing stats, wouldn't make harm. I would say let trust newcomers an low-stats. The world is turning very fast, it is not possible for one to be 'guru' all the time. 'Guru' shares experience rather than expertise. But experience is coming from the past not todays. It is to be 'open minded'. And try to avoid self-satisfaction.

But that freedom stops where it may harm other people.

with this you can justify almost everything.

'Guru' shares experience rather than expertise. But experience is coming from the past not todays.

Expertise is gained through experience. How do you think people answering questions got that knowledge? They know <this> command will do <that>, because they have found through experience that that command works, but the others they tried do not.

Originally Posted by Randicus Draco Albus If the intimidated people are one-fifth of every 1000 lurkers, then changes to the board to attract those people could be considered. If for every 1000 lurkers there are half-a-dozen intimidated people, it would be foolish to make changes to attract such a small number of people and risk driving away current members.

It is ridiculous. What makes you think that twenty peoples have greater value than one person ? World is built on individuals pushing it forwards. There are kids spending almost all their time at computer. It is often completely
chaotic self-education. Even asking sensible questions can be difficult for them. But nonetheless they have great
potential and already earned high skills. But in the same time they don't like to be teached, but it is acceptable
to be guided. So don't play the foolish game with them 'to be guru', they don't buy it. Worse, then can go nasty
and do those net attacks. Because they are actually kids. They have to learn responsibility. No one was borned responsible.

Why I am posting this? So I value great such attitude - to learn, to know, to extend your knowledge, sometimes it is inevitable to go risky way. If you would go steady way, at the end you will find yourself dinnosaur, a specie from the ancient past.

Originally Posted by igadoter I am still thinking that removing stats, wouldn't make harm. I would say let trust newcomers an low-stats. The world is turning very fast, it is not possible for one to be 'guru' all the time. 'Guru' shares experience rather than expertise. But experience is coming from the past not todays. It is to be 'open minded'. And try to avoid self-satisfaction.

Do not forget that very often here on LQ newbies/experienced members come with very serious problems that may have grave consequences (eg. loss of job, loss of data, financial implications, etc). For that reason, I don't think there's a place for the kind of "collaborative" newbie experiments you were proposing earlier or for oversensitive egos that feel intimidated because another member might have not provided an answer I wanted.

When my data/time is concerned, I'd like to know whether a piece of advice that is given to me comes from a person who has successfully helped others thousands of times or not. Without stats/reps I have no way of telling. Call it unfair, but sometimes there's way more at stake than hurt feelings of a member.

I think this thread is ridiculous. The initial point, that giving people some kind of "guru" status could intimidate others and prevent them posting answers, has some merit but beyond that this is getting silly. Whether "guru" existed or not the first reply to the thread which started this would still have mentioned "googling it" as the question was ridiculously lacking in any detail. This site could remove any indication of post counts or "reputation" and the post which started this whole thing would still have been replied to with "google this...". In fact, were it not for the careful and considerate moderation of this site the post would likely have received a reply which was lot more rude and a lot less helpful.
igadoter, with respect, you asked a question very badly and received a polite answer to it. Please just learn from that and move on.

I think this thread is ridiculous.

It is, but also very entertaining. For example:

What makes you think that twenty peoples have greater value than one person ?

A board that has thousands of members should be changed for the benefit of thirty, twenty or even one person.

Even asking sensible questions can be difficult for them. But nonetheless they have great potential and already earned high skills. But in the same time they don't like to be teached, but it is acceptable to be guided.

They do not know how to ask sensible questions, but should not be taught how to do so. And apparently, guiding is not teaching. I shall not go into further detail, because I do not want to intimidate anyone with my forceful attitude/knowledge/wisdom/arrogance.

Originally Posted by dugan Who else is looking forward to bumping this thread when igadoter reaches 5000 posts?

I did statistics: in this thread 53 memebers marked posts others as helpful.