LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   LQ Suggestions & Feedback (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/)
-   -   I think we should add one more rules: (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/i-think-we-should-add-one-more-rules-393147/)

TruongAn 12-15-2005 09:11 AM

I think we should add one more rules:
 
Hello everyone.
For a long time on that forum, many people acted in this way:
When they post a problem and ask for solution, if they was given one, they kept it for them and abandon the thread they had created.
They left other member, include those who had helped them, no information about did that solution worked.
It is not a polite to behalf, if you received a suitable solution, you would post back to thanks anyone who had helped.
I myself used to behave in that way the first time I take part in that forum, but I am changing now.
So, to prevent new memeber from behaving in that way, we should add a rules, or at least encourage each other to post back.
How do you think?

jeremy 12-15-2005 09:52 AM

While I 100% agree that a quick follow up is absolutely invaluable, this isn't something we can realistically make a rule about - how would we possibly enforce it?

--jeremy

hiren_bhatt 12-15-2005 09:53 AM

I totally agree with you. Forums are not for just getting one's problem solved and disappear. It is rather a place for discussion, sharing ideas, exchanging information.

One should at least confirm to the solution weather it worked or not, it will greatly help others to know what solutions works under what conditions. Also people who think like this should keep on encouraging each other to post back.

J.W. 12-15-2005 10:05 AM

This is an excellent recommendation and I completely agree. I would encourage all LQ'ers to try to make a point of responding to a thread with a follow-up comment if the information in it helped you solve whatever problem you were encountering.

titanium_geek 12-15-2005 10:20 AM

even just "it worked! thanks!" is great. 10 seconds of your time could save a couple of hours for someone else. Be considerate.

titanium_geek

TruongAn 12-15-2005 10:22 AM

You cannot hope the other to behave politely since you haven't told them how to do so
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremy
While I 100% agree that a quick follow up is absolutely invaluable, this isn't something we can realistically make a rule about - how would we possibly enforce it?

--jeremy

A possible and effective way to enforce a rule? NO way.
I mean: while people are breaking the goverment's law outside, how can you make them obey a forum's rule.
But.
There is still many polite people who are willing to obey the rules.
And if post back is not a rule, no one will obey it.

In addition, if you want way to make people post back, you can use pop-up to remind them to finish the threads they have started (but it is not an effective way :) )

titanium_geek 12-15-2005 10:40 AM

as I see it, a rule is something that MUST be enforced, there are consequences and punishments for repeat violators. Like no double posts, for example.

If a rule just stated but impossible to enforce, then ALL the rules are breakable. If all the rules have set consequences, then people will follow them. Otherwise, there would be chaos in the forum.

"finish your threads" is a suggestion/encouragment, not a rule.

titanium_geek

TruongAn 12-15-2005 10:51 AM

Yes I agree that this ideal is a suggestions, not yet a rule
But where should we put it?
The first time I regist to this forum, no one suggest me that things.
Now, where and when should we suggest the new member to finsh their thread

jeremy 12-15-2005 11:21 AM

That's a good question. While I don't think it should be a rule, I do think it's something we should encourage.

--jeremy

trickykid 12-15-2005 11:31 AM

As I don't necessarily see it as a problem, it's always encouraged but I also put in the back of my mind if they are provided a solution and there are 0 responses from them, it's also a sign it worked for them or they just moved on.

I'd rather focus on some of the other rules we have and enforcing those, like double posts and advertising, which are the big % of rule breakers. Just cause it's a rule doesn't mean it's going to be followed, we have members who report posts as if they're replying or reporting to speed up their replies, when it clearly states in big bold letters the reasons to report a post and so on.

Again, there are other rules that are being broken that affect the forums on a totally different level, those should be focused on more often than trying to get members to respond if a solution provided actually worked. Most of the time if they truly want help and a reply they recieved didn't help, usually they're rather quick to respond. Even though a "thanks, it worked" gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, I don't think it should be required by members and I don't expect it each and everytime I try to help someone.

minrich 12-15-2005 01:02 PM

Sorry to be so vague but I recall a reference to a 'how to ask a question' link in one of the Mod's signatures. Wouldn't the addition of a 'polite' addendum thereto requesting a 'thread closing statement' from the original poser of the question be a non-mandatory way of addressing TruongAn's suggestion. I agree that it is, would be, impossible to police, and should not be added a as Rule.

jeremy 12-15-2005 03:51 PM

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adding it to one of the LQ LA's. http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/...Ask_a_Question probably makes the most sense.

--jeremy

ctkroeker 12-15-2005 06:36 PM

How about a time-out of a week or two (depends), if a thread has not been solved in that time, or no posts in that time, the thread starter gets a email asking him to please post a quick answere, like: Solved. for example.

minrich 12-15-2005 08:34 PM

ctkroeker

I am not sure if this would work as proposed.

I am a long time subscriber to a number of posts in the '0 replies email' - at the last count I have some 400+ threads (subscribed to) and there are two reasons why I subscribe (without posting a reply):

1. If I am interested in learning what the solution to the posed question is - and this has the added advantage of not cluttering up the LQ forums with similar questions of my own (maybe on a different distro forum or on my own specific hardware - I for instance only have ATI graphics on my 3 laptops and 1 desktop/workstation) and I can hide my shame in having to ask what may appear to others (more experienced than me) as rather basic, and

2. While I may have a response to the posed question, there are surely, in my experience, others here who have undeniable hands-on experience in the area in question, and it is my fear that in posting a response or a partial response I will remove the then 0 reply thread from the scrutiny of others wiser than me.

[Incidentally: A QUESTION for jeremy or the Mods: If the original poser of a question adds a second post (rather than editing the original post) is this recognized by the current software as a reply, or does the thread remain as a '0 reply' looking for an answer?]

So I wait for someone to chime in and then add a comment, based on my own experiences, upon receipt of an advisory email.

So, in my case, it doesn't matter if a reply isn't received within a couple of weeks, especially if the 0 replies search goes back that far.

I would add that I often, or at least, in the past, regularily scroll through the 0 replies looking for areas in which I can be of some assistance - this may have been triggered by LQ's recent effort to try and reduce the unanswered posts.

The other thing that I try to do is search for all posts containing 'vmware' since I had until recently only been running linux distros within vmware on Windows machines - and I regularly find that I can help on both unanswered and partially answered questions.


One thing I would like to see however is a poster's option to choose a 'flag' that signifies that a thread is not expecting replies. For instance, a post, with a heading such as: "Problems with ATI drivers???" that describes in detail how to download and install the driver SUCCESSFULLY.


Hope this helps.

Cheers
Richard

microsoft/linux 12-15-2005 10:21 PM

I must admit this makes a lot of sense, both from a poster stand point, and from a person searching the forums standpoint. I am however guilty of leaving open-ended forums without telling what worked and what didn't, mainly because I forget about it. I'll try and do this in the future


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 PM.