a544@mindlink.UUCP (Rick McCormack) (11/13/90)
in a reply on this subject, johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu gets my vote when he sez: The alternative is to treat the public information networks as a forum for experts-only to show off their expertise. Big deal! That's fine for alt.flame and alt.religion.computers. Keep the beginner questions coming! ***end quote*** I'll bet a lot of people have noted down solutions posted, and use them and are glad they didn't ask SILLY QUESTIONS.
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) (11/14/90)
Often in comp.sys.mac.*, I have seen questions asked that are of an extremely basic nature; things that can be found in the manuals of the products without a great deal of trouble. How do all of you interpret these types of questions? I generally assume that anyone who would have to post to the net asking how to accomplish something of this nature must not be a legitimate owner of the product, since they seem not to have a manual to refer to. Because of this, I am inclined to never answer questions like this, or to answer them only with the number of the illuminating manual page. Has this been brought up before? I'm curious as to net.opinion on this matter, and I thought it might benerate some lively discussion. chaz -- Someone please release me from this trance. clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu AOL:Crowbone
dmittman@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Mittman) (11/14/90)
I have found that constantly telling new users to refer to their manuals is not effective; no matter how simple a manual is, many people will still not read it (even professional programmers!) I find it simpler to jot out an effective response with perhaps a reference to a manual. - David Mittman DMittman@Beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV
resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) (11/14/90)
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >How do all of you interpret these [basic] types of questions? Not to might light of your "lively conversation," but unless the person is consistent in their failure to RTFM, I think these should be given reasonable charity and answered ("You must have missed that full page of boldface in the second section of *Introduction to silly Mac users manual*!"). There are also sometimes where they are questions that we do not feel like searching the manual for because it seems like a rather minute issue, even though it is on page 1. pr -- Pete Resnick (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?) Graduate assistant - Philosophy Department, Gregory Hall, UIUC System manager - Cognitive Science Group, Beckman Institute, UIUC Internet/ARPAnet/EDUnet : resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu BITNET (if no other way) : FREE0285@UIUCVMD
phil@waikato.ac.nz (11/14/90)
In article <2715@ux.acs.umn.edu>, clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: > Often in comp.sys.mac.*, I have seen questions asked that are of an extremely > basic nature; things that can be found in the manuals of the products without > a great deal of trouble. > > How do all of you interpret these types of questions? I generally assume that > anyone who would have to post to the net asking how to accomplish something of > this nature must not be a legitimate owner of the product, since they seem not > to have a manual to refer to. In the case of our campus, students can use software on servers (licensed for the number of computers with access to the software) and not have direct access to the manual (they'd get stolen if they were left in the labs). However we have a help desk arrangement where users can go for assistance. It's sad that naive users have to resort to the net for answers to trivial questions rather than the local user support network. I feel it should be an obligation to consortium members to provide a decent level of local support. > > Because of this, I am inclined to never answer questions like this, or to > answer them only with the number of the illuminating manual page. Has this > been brought up before? I'm curious as to net.opinion on this matter, and > I thought it might benerate some lively discussion. > I'm not sure if I've ever seen one (but I've got my flame-proof suit handy just in case it exists), but perhaps a Frequently Asked Questions file as seen in other newsgroups would be a good idea. If it was posted once a week, say, old hands can KILL it, and those new to the group would have a good chance of seeing it. I'm not volunteering to compile the file -- maybe the suggestion will inspire someone. Alternatively, let the freedom of people's wills govern the action taken. If someone feels like answering the request, let them go for it! -- Phil Etheridge (phil@waikato.ac.nz) /\ /\ -+-,--, .--, ._ Computer Services/Mathematics & Statistics / \/ \ / /--< /-- / University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. / \/ /__.) \_ /
aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson) (11/14/90)
clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >Often in comp.sys.mac.*, I have seen questions asked that are of an extremely >basic nature; things that can be found in the manuals of the products without >a great deal of trouble. >How do all of you interpret these types of questions? For two years after first seeing/touching/using[1] Macs, I had never seen a manual and didn't realize that a manual even existed! I think that operator headspace[2] accounts for a bunch of the questions on the groups, and manuals that suck (like MicroSoft's) account for some more. I'd guess that people who have bootlegged copies don't account for very many questions. ------------ 1. IS IT JUST ME OR IS IT GETTING HOT IN HERE? 2. Cluelessness, having a bad day, overlooking the obvious. -- Brian Aslakson aslakson@cs.umn.edu mac-admin@cs.umn.edu <-= Macintosh related
johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu (11/14/90)
In article <2287.27414833@waikato.ac.nz>, phil@waikato.ac.nz writes... >In article <2715@ux.acs.umn.edu>, clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >> Often in comp.sys.mac.*, I have seen questions asked that are of an extremely >> basic nature; things that can be found in the manuals of the products without >> a great deal of trouble. >> >> I thought it might benerate some lively discussion. I agree. >I'm not sure if I've ever seen one (but I've got my flame-proof suit handy just >in case it exists), but perhaps a Frequently Asked Questions file as seen in >other newsgroups would be a good idea. If it was posted once a week, say, old A first attempt at a FAQ file _was_ posted in comp.sys.mac.announce recently. It's a good place for stuff like 'how to ftp', 'what's Binhex 4.0', etc. Otherwise, I think basic questions are fine. I disagree with the premise that some individuals will use the net in lieu of a manual. I haven't seen any evidence of particular individuals 'coming to the well' repeatedly. (Although a few people have gone out of their way to ANSWER more than their share -- and thanks!) I think instead that a little 'net.goodwill' goes a long way. Most people get a lot a news by merely reading (aka lurking). A polite and helpful response to a 'Help Wanted' posting demonstrates the information sharing ethic that underlies the net. Who knows, that person may turn around and become a Mac resource for a whole workgroup or company ... So what if some people can learn to use a Mac without reading a manual. Doesn't it follow that some others may likewise learn it without a manual but with the benefit of an answer to one good question? The alternative is to treat the public information networks as a forum for experts-only to show off their expertise. Big deal! That's fine for alt.flame and alt.religion.computers. Keep the beginner questions coming! ______________________________________________________________________ Bill Johnston; 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949 (johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------------
clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Kathy Strong) (11/14/90)
"answers to obvious questions?" Yeah, I think that some of these people are operating without a manual, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are pirates (large university computer labs come to mind...). Sometimes the questions seem PAINFULLY obvious, I'll grant... when the fellow asked "how do I highlight a whole document in Word?" I wrote him an email reply that began "You're probably going to get a hundred replies, and at least half will begin 'Dear Joe, RTFM'..." (with a smiley, of course, and then I told him how). I teach an "informal class," one of those once-a-week nighttime jobbies, on design for desktop publishers, and I firmly believe that the only STUPID question is the one that isn't asked. What if Joe had gone the rest of his life dragging the cursor all the way through his Word documents to high- light them? :-) So, I think it's a matter of net.courtesy not to flame on people with questions whose answers you learned in the cradle. On the other hand, it's also net.courtesy to answer in email, unless three other postings pop up saying "Yeah, *I* too want to know how to do that." And hey, could someone tell me how to ftp? (just kidding) --Kathy -- ........................................................................... : Kathy Strong : "Try our Hubble-Rita: just one shot, : : (Clouds moving slowly) : and everything's blurry" : : clouds@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu : --El Arroyo : :..........................................................................:
jimb@silvlis.com (Jim Budler) (11/15/90)
In article <2715@ux.acs.umn.edu> clarson@ux.acs.umn.edu (Chaz Larson) writes: >Often in comp.sys.mac.*, I have seen questions asked that are of an extremely >basic nature; things that can be found in the manuals of the products without >a great deal of trouble. Having spent the last six years answering questions from users which all "can be found in the manuals of the products without a great deal of trouble." I realize that most users' idea of "a great deal of trouble" is defined by the effort of opening the book. > >How do all of you interpret these types of questions? I generally assume that >anyone who would have to post to the net asking how to accomplish something of >this nature must not be a legitimate owner of the product, since they seem not >to have a manual to refer to. Naw, I assume they are a typical user. Frightened to death by the complexity of a Table of Contents. Comic books and tv shows don't usually come with them 8^). > >Because of this, I am inclined to never answer questions like this, or to >answer them only with the number of the illuminating manual page. Has this >been brought up before? I'm curious as to net.opinion on this matter, and >I thought it might benerate some lively discussion. > >chaz I'm inclined to give people the benefit of doubt, or in constitutional terms "innocent until proven guilty". Besides, I firmly believe there are actually more good people in the world than bad people by a significant amount. jim -- __ __ / o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com | Proud / / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco, Inc. +1.408.991.6115 | MacIIsi /__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 | owner
francis@wolfman.cis.ohio-state.edu (RD Francis) (11/16/90)
In response to the person suggesting the institution of a Frequently Asked Questions list: Evidently, you do not read comp.sys.mac.announce (a mistake, actually; if you read any mac group, you should read that one as well; the signal to noise ratio is kept quite high, and the volume is incredibly low (usually no more than 1-2 messages a week, if any)). A FAQ was just posted there for the first time a week or two ago. I believe that the author would greatly appreciate it if people would look it over, and submit answers to other frequent questions. -- R David Francis francis@cis.ohio-state.edu
NU070199@NDSUVM1.BITNET (Neal Schlepp) (11/16/90)
This is a legitimate question, I've got an application by the name of Music Works (Ver 0.42, created 10/11/84, the icon looks like a little ghetto blaster) with several music files (I think they are music files for MusicWorks, their Icon is a little cassette??) My problem is this, whenever I try to start up MusicWorks, I get the msg 'The application has unexpectedly quit (1)'. Now are there any special features that my Mac IIcx needs (running system 6.0.5, with multifinder 6.0.5, 5 meg memory, sound chip installed (ASC rev.8 <-(not to sure what that means though)) like a different sound player or something for MusicWorks to work, or is there a different Version out (I found this App, and files on an old disk). Can it run under Multifinder. I guess that this is more than one legit question, so here goes one more, if MusicWorks is no longer available, is there some sort of Application around that will play the MusicWorks files anyway? As usual thanks in advance, and the usual disclaimers.... :) Any replies can be sent directly to me, NU070199@NDSUVM1 or posted here..
weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) (11/26/90)
In article <36278@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes: > >I think instead that a little 'net.goodwill' goes a long way. Most people >get a lot a news by merely reading (aka lurking). > Agreed. I am in read-only mode in almost all news groups. I have learned a tremendous amount by simply reading other's posts. However, what ticks me off is the "please e-mail cause I never read this group, I'll post a summary." request, and no summary usually appears. If one asks a question and gets the answer thru email, they have, IMHO, an ethical obligation to the net to summarize -- think of it as payment for services. There may be a lot of us waiting for the summary... The ole "if there is enough interest, I'll summarize" disclaimer sucks too. Should the net be filled with "I'm interested too, let me know" messages? Oh well, chmod -w weave@brahms.udel.edu ; back to read-only! -- >>>---> Ken Weaverling >>>----> weave@brahms.udel.edu
phil@waikato.ac.nz (11/26/90)
In article <16129@brahms.udel.edu>, weave@brahms.udel.edu (Ken Weaverling) writes: > However, what ticks me off is the "please e-mail cause I never read this > group, I'll post a summary." request, and no summary usually appears. If one > asks a question and gets the answer thru email, they have, IMHO, an ethical > obligation to the net to summarize -- think of it as payment for services. > There may be a lot of us waiting for the summary... I agree - it's nice when help sent off into email doesn't go nto a black hole. > > The ole "if there is enough interest, I'll summarize" disclaimer sucks too. > Should the net be filled with "I'm interested too, let me know" messages? > I disagree. The person who puts the message in is probably busy and doesn't feel like spending 1/2 an hour or more compiling a note that noone's going to read. It's inappropriate to answer such requests in the newsgroup -- answers to this sort of request should be mailed to the poster. I've posted such messages in the past, in this group and others. Sometimes I've gauged interest badly and been showered with email, other times I've only had a couple of replies, to which I've responded personally. I guess the only problem with this method is that "listeners" mightn't respond and will miss out. -- Phil Etheridge (phil@waikato.ac.nz) /\ /\ -+-,--, .--, ._ Computer Services/Mathematics & Statistics / \/ \ / /--< /-- / University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ. / \/ /__.) \_ /