ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (12/13/88)
In article <454@ur-cc.UUCP> joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) writes: >BTW - At the end of my last posting I said that I'd like replies e-mailed >because I don't always have time to read this newsgroup. Thanks for >honoring that. One person, however, complained that this is a "rather >arrogant way to ask for help." It is an arrogant way to ask for help unless you clearly state "I will summarize replies to the net" (you may well have done), and honour that promise (which you certainly did). This is an accepted USENET practice to keep volume low, but can be very frustrating for someone who is looking for just that same piece of information. >because I don't always have time to read this newsgroup. is *not* a good reason, because you are asking other people to make an effort on your behalf without seeming to match that effort yourself. There is one interesting fact about this particular newsgroup however. The question to answer ratio would appear to be very high compared with other groups (with a few notable exceptions every now and again). *Many* questions go by unanswered publicly, and if my own experience is anything to go by, privately too. Is this because the volume in the newsgroup inhibits replying? I know there are many questions I could answer if only I could budget the time. Is it the extremely wide range of expertise the group attempts to cover? Perhaps *this* should be the driving reason to split comp.sys.ibm.pc into separate wizard and application, or hardware and software, groups? -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
mguyott@mirror.UUCP (Marc Guyott) (12/15/88)
In article <1545@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: > >There is one interesting fact about this particular newsgroup however. The >question to answer ratio would appear to be very high compared with other >groups (with a few notable exceptions every now and again). > >*Many* questions go by unanswered publicly, and if my own experience is >anything to go by, privately too. > I have always received prompt and useful answers to any questions that I have posted to this group. The great majority of these answers have been via e-mail to me as opposed to posted to the group. The concept of summarizing the replies and posting one response to any question is, in my opinion, a good one when adhered to. In the past I have seen several questions in which the poster promised to follow up with a summary of the results and then I never saw said summary. I do not know if this was because there were no responses or if it was because the original poster never found the time to follow up to his/her question. I've always felt that if people take the time to respond to you, then the least you can do is take the time to post a summary of these responses. Net-etiquette, you can't live with it and you can't live without it 8-). Marc ---- "All my life I always wanted to BE somebody. I see now I should have been more specific." Jane Wagner Marc Guyott mguyott@mirror.TMC.COM {mit-eddie, pyramid, harvard!wjh12, xait, datacube}!mirror!mguyott Mirror Systems Cambridge, MA 02140 617/661-0777
porter@topaz.rutgers.edu (Adam L. Porter) (12/16/88)
>>because I don't always have time to read this newsgroup. >is *not* a good reason, because you are asking other people to make an effort >on your behalf without seeming to match that effort yourself. I certainly agree...well-said. >There is one interesting fact about this particular newsgroup however. The >question to answer ratio would appear to be very high compared with other >groups (with a few notable exceptions every now and again). >*Many* questions go by unanswered publicly, and if my own experience is >anything to go by, privately too. My experience has been different. I have received at least a half-dozen replies (public and private combined) to each of the ~10 questions I have posted since the summer. And I would say that the questions ranged from general to reasonably obscure. Furthermore, I found the responses to be quick, informative, and polite. This has encouraged me to reply to many more messages than I used to. >Is this because the volume in the newsgroup inhibits replying? I know there >are many questions I could answer if only I could budget the time. Same here. But I think this newsgroup is doing extremely well, with the vast majority of questions seeming (to me) to be far above novice level, but not beyond the understanding of the average semi-power-user. -- ============================================================================== Adam L. Porter 272 Hamilton St. #96 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 (201) 247-6723 ==============================================================================
noren@dinl.uucp (Charles Noren) (12/16/88)
In article <1545@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
<*Many* questions go by unanswered publicly, and if my own experience is
<anything to go by, privately too.
<
<Is this because the volume in the newsgroup inhibits replying? I know there
<are many questions I could answer if only I could budget the time. Is it
<the extremely wide range of expertise the group attempts to cover? Perhaps
<*this* should be the driving reason to split comp.sys.ibm.pc into separate
<wizard and application, or hardware and software, groups?
I agree, there are several groups I need to read, but this group is optional
for me and its hard for me to read this before our system expires articles,
let alone find time to respond.
--
Chuck Noren
NET: ncar!dinl!noren
US-MAIL: Martin Marietta I&CS, MS XL8058, P.O. Box 1260,
Denver, CO 80201-1260
Phone: (303) 971-7930thaler@speedy.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) (12/17/88)
I would say that the quality of the answers on this message base is
directly related to the quality of the question. If it is well worded,
specific, and to the point, the answer will generally match that.
VAGUE, general questions will often be ignored.
Maurice Thaler SYSOP Audio Projects BBS (608) 836-9473
SYSOP Power Board BBS (608) 222-8842 keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (12/17/88)
In article <1545@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >... >There is one interesting fact about this particular newsgroup however. The >question to answer ratio would appear to be very high compared with other >groups (with a few notable exceptions every now and again). > >*Many* questions go by unanswered publicly, and if my own experience is >anything to go by, privately too. > >Is this because the volume in the newsgroup inhibits replying? I know there >are many questions I could answer if only I could budget the time. There are lots of questions I could contribute to, too. Reasons I don't respond to all of them: 1. ALL of them? Sorry, but I *do* have to at least take a potty break now and then :-) 2. Surely I'm not the *only* one with an answer, so I usually don't respond to posters on the other side of the continent (I'm on the west coast (of the United States)) much less the other side of an ocean. I figure someone "more local" can respond. 3. One wearies of seeing the same questions asked every month or so. I honestly think that we need a "Answers to Commonly Asked Questions (so Don't Ask It Again)" available for every new reader (with a quiz at the end before they're allowed to post. 1/2 :-) ). 4. "Please reply by mail because I don't usually read this group" translates into "I'm too damn lazy to look into this myself so how about someone else doing my research for me?" and results in the question getting electronically round-filed, unless a promise to post a summary of responses is included. Things that prompt me to reply (mail or post): A. I recognize the requestor as having actively contributed to earlier discussions. Sorry, this may be biased, but that's just the way it is. Think of it as "paying your dues" and save the "keith, you're a snob (or slob)" flames for /dev/null. B. The requestor is "local" where the definition of "local" is time- (and mood-) variant and modified by A., above. Part of this is not wanting to spend lots of other people's/companies' money on 'phone calls. (You know, of course, that UNIX is just AT&T's way of increasing telephone-call revenues, don't you? :-) ) Things that prompt me to reply (post): C. Some really incorrect information needs to be set right. D. The information may be of use/importance to a wide audience, more than just the individual requestor. keith
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/18/88)
One does not see answers here because people are not supposed to post answers to queries. The *asker* is supposed to, if it is felt necessary, post the best answer to the query. The answerers must reply by mail, and they annoy everybody when they don't. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (12/18/88)
keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: > > 1. ALL of them? Sorry, but I *do* have to at least take a potty > break now and then :-) Catheters. Portable PCs and long phone cord extensions :-) > 4. "Please reply by mail because I don't usually read this group" > translates into "I'm too damn lazy to look into this myself so > how about someone else doing my research for me?" and results in > the question getting electronically round-filed, unless a promise > to post a summary of responses is included. I used to be bothered by this attitude also, but consider someone who, for some reason, has to come up with an answer to a question that's right outside his/her normal field of interest or expertise. (Or perhaps it's an office worker who can't justify full working days of newsreading on a routine basis (hmmm).) Somehow it seems arrogant to me to demand that this person wade through possibly 150 or 200 messages, most of them irrelevant and possibly incomprehensible, on the off-chance that the answer to his question has appeared within the last week or so. Conversely, here I am with my world-shaking answer, just cryin' to be shared with all the other newsjunkies. In my case, I'm even willing to take the time to read my own posting once to check for spilling and has I made any grammatical errors. (:-) Am _I_ too damn lazy to mail it to the original poster? Or is that not enough of an ego-boost for me? I dunno, I just don't like witholding information from someone simply because he's been honest instead of attaching the right code phrases to a request. I could ask the person to post a summary of answers eventually, if the question was really that fascinating....
rmarks@KSP.Unisys.COM (Richard Marks) (12/20/88)
I sometimes answer questions. I tend to answer if I know about the subject area and if the question is succinctly stated on the Subject line. I tend not to answer questions which are basically "I am too lazy to read the manual" or "I have pirated software so I do not have the manual". I usually reply directly, I do not usually post responses. I have had a good success rate in getting responses to my questions. Richard MArks rmarks@KSP.unisys.COM