This question not searched, title OK?
 

I'm not going to name names and I hope noone else will in this thread. But what is this rediculous and constant hassling people about not searching first about? I just read a thread where someone was harassed for not making a good title for their post. Yes, I get that it's a very good idea to search first and yes a better title can be helpful. But do people really think that harassing people about those things is going to change their habits? Don't get me wrong. I don't know what the solution is. But I am totally tired of some of the self appointed search police here. Maybe you search police could give the rest of us a break from it for a while. :rolleyes:

NS

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

amen brother

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Because when you spend a lot of your time trying to help, it gets a little grating to have the same questions asked over and over and over again. It's not easy trying to answer everybody's question. Those of us who do put a lot of time and energy into trying to help people, so I'm sorry if requesting that people put a little of their own time and energy into doing a little research before asking questions which have been answered many times before.

You would understand if you answered as many questions as I have. :)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I guess there are three responses I'll give when someone posts a question that has already been answered a dozen times and can be found with a little effort on the part of the poster (OP):

1. Post the answer yet again
2. Post a comment instructing the OP to search for their answer
3. Post nothing as it's just a pain in the arse repeating what is already available

I believe that once a question has been answered more than half a dozen times in separate threads it becomes a little unnecessary to keep answering it again and again, leaving me with options 2 & 3.

Option 3 is far less helpful than option 2, so often I will take the option 2 route but I think I should at least provide the keywords the OP needs to search with (I must admit I haven't always done this, but will try to in future). Telling someone to use search is an entirely valid answer, provided they are told what to search for (which may not always be obvious to the OP).

There's no reason for it to get nasty though or for anyone to resort to harassment, but unfortunately some OP's don't like being made to look stupid/lazy in public, and some posters are possibly a little too aggressive at times when telling the OP to go search (too much coffee, not enough sex, tripped over the dog, whatever). :)

What GeneralAntilles says is correct though, there are people here who spend a lot of time answering queries and it's often annoying to see someone post the same often answered questions without making any effort to see if it's already been answered before - that's pretty lame behaviour and ignorance isn't always an excuse. :)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I know I'm going to choose option 3 a lot more now, because I'm tired of helping people who are too lazy to do even the most basic search to try to find an answer to their question.

I've spent MANY MANY hours searching for answers to my own questions and the questions of others. If an OP can't be bothered to make even the slightest effort to help themselves, then why should I make any effort to help them?

Thanks Sungrove, for making me see the error of my ways.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

sungrove, as regards the poster being "harassed" for not having an appropriate title, there is a very simple explanation (I do not harass such people myself, but I do point out "bad" titles): if the title of the thread is not descriptive enough, it will most probably be overlooked by the more helpful and active members in here, as well as by newbies who want to find out information for themselves. It is much better to have a title along the lines of: "Memory corruption bug in OS2007HE" than "Do you guys have this problem too?"; I hope you see what I mean here.
As regards your other point, I wholeheartedly agree with Millhouse and will try and do my best to point to some good search keywords in my replies.

HTH.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

We could just ignore anyone asking same question again but this does make situation worse.

1. Anyone asking same question again makes situation harder for people who come next searching for same answer. Next person must read more threads and may end giving up and asking the question yet again making situation even worse. I think we are already at this stage now :-)

2. Also when such threads are ignored by those who could provide correct answer the thread grows anyway by answers from other clueless people and confuse those who come next even more. Example - there are several threads about USB host mode. I have personally answered in several such ones that host mode with OS2007 based N800 is possible and no, you don't need extra power for low power devices and still several similar threads popped up with people still claiming this is not possible or telling other people that they need extra power, etc.

It is quite frustrating to see this forum degenerate into mess. And you are doing it to yourself.

Yes, this is still valid choice. The helpful ones can simply go away.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I was puzzled by the title for a few seconds and I just cant stop laughing. You are definitely funny. I read those posts and that is exactly what I felt, a little bit too much. However, s/he does know a little bit more than others, I just look the other way. My wife keeps reminding me, pretty girl can always get away with anything, and you can only jealous :o.


bun

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Fanoush writes: The helpful ones can simply go away.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to appologize for the rant aspect of my original post. But I want to thank you guys for taking seriously a subject that seems to be of interest and concern for many of us for different reasons. I obviously can't and don't speak for the group, but those that have responded to this post really should be appreciated for the help you provide dayly to folks. I particularly recall both Milhouse and Fanoush spending time trying to help me. So, please, if you want to go away, OK, but we like/ need your help if you care to offer it.

I easily see your point of view about feeling frustrated that people seem to just ask questions over and over again. I would like to thank Milhouse for laying out a constructive outline of options as responses to this problem. As I said before, I don't have the answers, but at some point you will get tired of answering and we will be timid to ask perhaps. I think maybe part of the problem here is the knowledge gap between us. This can be a problem I think for both parties. I may do a search to look for the answer to my question, I have read the posts. But because I don't have some of the background knowledge or vocabulary , I simply don't understand enough of the details of the solution the writer has offered to be able to make the last link in my head or maybe several things appear to me to be missing in the solution offered. Now I'm not saying that you are offering incomplete solutions. It's probably more that, given your knowledge , you may leave out some details that you take for granted as being part of the proceedure. And yah, I get that to fill in all those details could take more time than you are willing to put into it-quite understandable. Anyway, so I put a question together that I hope will elicit the answer I need. To you it just looks like I have just asked a question that someone else has already asked because it really is the same question in some ways-especially from your more educated point of view. To me it may seem less so because I need to understand it in a particular way.
This has been particularly so for me in situations that may require the use of Osso-xterm . You may give me the code to type in, but I don't even know how to activate that code.
So, obviously I would benefit greatly from simply becoming more educated about Linux. On the other hand, although greatly appreciated, I can totally understand action of simply not answering the same question again. I just think that would be preferable to being told once again to search out the answer.

NS

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Then reply to the thread in which you found the solution with a request for more detail. I hardly see how finding a solution that you don't understand warrants a new thread when a perfectly good one already exists. Posting the new thread will only fragment the solution further, you do yourself and everybody else who searches for the solution a disservice by doing so. Clarifying details in the original thread will help everybody more.

At worst, if you absolutely must create a new thread, at least mention something about the fact that you searched and found a solution (or didn't), and that you didn't understand. Outline some of the points you missed, link to some of the solutions. Give us something to know that you've put forth some effort. I know I'm a lot more inclined to help somebody who has put forth the effort to help themselves than somebody who just spams new topics whenever they meet some minor problem and expects everybody to hand them answers on a silver platter.

Nobody here has a problem with helping people with less experience, what we do have a problem with is duplicating effort over, and over, and over, and over again. :)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I wish there was an easy way to filter these repeated post out and delete them...

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Sungrove, people have complained about this sort of thing before. Did you search before posting this thread?

/looks around.

What!?

/gets coat.

...

Being serious though, although I am not particularly active on these forums, I am elsewhere (on a different topic) and I completely understand why the "active helpers" here feel the way they do. When you answer a question for the twentieth time, or as I sometimes do - cut and paste your response from the previous thread - it is hard to maintain the cheerful and sunny disposition, especially when you get the occasional rude poster who seems to think that it is your fault that they cannot do what they want to do.

I know that ideally we should maintain a frequently updated FAQ, indexed and searchable on the most commonly searched keywords, but that's an awful lot of work for people who actually are just like you and me, have day jobs, lives, social lives and want to get on with enjoying them. ;)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Unexpectedly, this actually turns out to be an excellent and useful thread :-)

I would like to add something that hasn't been reminded to newcomers yet : encouraging members to a) search before posting and b) use descriptive titles when they create new threads, are in a way the same thing.

When you need to find something buried in two year's worth of accumulated posts, it's sometimes difficult to find the right keywords. Even then, if those keywords are not very specific, there can be a lot of "noise" mixed up with the useful hits.

One of the best ways around this is to use advanced search and first search in topic titles only : if your keyword(s) appear in the topic title itself there's a much better chance the contents will be useful to you.

Of course, that only works if the topic creator went to the trouble of composing a meaningful title for it. Otherwise, the info you need may be hidden inside a "help me!" or a "Strange problem!" topic, and you will have a harder time finding it...

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

This IS the answer. Somebody need to pick up the job. Some of us that willing to donnate the time and effort. Before that, just like any public forum, the 'ruder's can continue to be rude, and although offering help that may NOT even be appreciated, and the newbie continue to post the way they are, and put the 'ruder's in ignore file ;). The forum is like a phone, you can either ignore it and let it ring off the hook or picking a fight. Finally, I do not know the purpose of helping others in a forum. Your only reward is,
1) I am a good boy scout, I help somebody.
2) Somebody appreciates my help and get less trouble.
3) Spread knowledge

ALL three purposes defeated by being rude. Think about it, please. I have seen many repeated questions, I answer them or ignore them depends on my time schedule. Telling people posting here to use the search function does NOT help. You really think an average joe walking on street will know how to post in a forum and registered and find this particular forum? Whoever post in this forum are pretty seasoned computer users. It just drives newbies away and INCREASE bandwidth. OP put in a 20 lines discussions on thread #9, I agree totally, things can be learned easier if explained from a different angles, several times sometimes. FAQ should solve the problems. Where are you?

bun

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I'm, pretty new to ITT, and have found it a valuable resource for learning more about my N800, the OS, accessories, etc. The learning process can get frustrating at times due to the large number of same topic threads, non-descriptive titles, off-topic replies, etc. Having said that, I have found the answers to most of my questions via the excellent responses and how-to's of the Members of this forum. Thank you.

Self control is pretty hard to excercise in forums such as these - it's just too easy to type a new thread without bothering to research first. The old saying "Listen twice as much as you talk" comes to mind.

I know that the topic of moderators came up a while back. Is this something that should be revisited?

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

It is surprising how often someone says "you can easily answer your question by searching," and then it turns out that the question the user actually has has anomalous characteristics that mean it is NOT covered.

Also, from my examination of thousands of threads, I would say that many, many of them don't end up in a clearcut, unconfusing fashion that would be understood by a newbie. There are all kinds of extraneous details that a search will bring up, all of which will confuse many users more than enlighten them (I'm going partly by my eight years as an electronic support manager for a major corporation, now defunct.)

On the subject of titles, I agree with those who protest. It's like someone who drives up at 5 a.m. in your neighborhood and honks their horn fiercely, because they want to get the attention of the person they are picking up. The problem is, they also get the attention of everyone else in the neighborhood, many of whom would like to sleep.

A vague title is almost as rude, because it beckons everyone to "please help!!!!", even the people who don't know anything about the problem the poster goes on to describe.

By the way: where is the internet tablet FAQ? Why aren't we referring those duplicating questioners to the FAQ, like people do on most similar forums? Instead of saying "you idiot, try to learn search," you could say "see item 5 on the FAQ".

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I have said this before and gotten shot down... But I think we should use the wiki more, have a nice collection of directions to get stuff done, or a list of working GPS units. I just think that would be an easier place for people to find beginner stuff and it could be a little more organized than a forum.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Yes, everyone agrees that is the right solution. Now all we need is volunteers to write those FAQs in the Wiki :-)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

As a newb here:

Please don't tell us to just search. Actually taking the time to tell people to search instead of providing real help does read like FOAD.

Just say nothing, give us some search terms that you know work, or provide a link to an old thread that answers the question.

Or better yet (pretty please): answer the question just one more time, but put that answer in the wiki instead of a thread post.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Aren't you forgetting the beer and the shoe-shine ? Or are we getting away easy ? :)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Shoe shine I can do. Please send your shoes to the address at the bottom of this post. ;)

Methinks I'll go and have a look at the wiki, and size up the amount of work needed to kick off a proper FAQ.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Looks like someone has already made a start! Which one of you generous characters was it?

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Seriously, though : I recall several (not many but several) occurrences, in the early days of ITT, of newbies having their questions answered by only-slightly-less newbies (but generally experienced Linux hands) and then following up with their own Wiki page to write down the solution in their own words. Works wonders when it happens...

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Well, there's always:

4. Post a rude response suggesting that if they had searched, using <search terms>, they'd have found this thread<link to thread> where I already answered that question.

Of course, you could skip the rude bit, but calling helpless newbs by crude anatomical references can have a therapeutic effect.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

So, if I posted a title, for example, 'For the Wiki - SD card speed recommendations' with the understanding that I would try to summarize any answers in the wiki then you experts might consider repeating yourself one last time and not tell me to go search myself?:)

I would buy that deal.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Yeah, they decide that they made a mistake in buying a tablet, return it if they can and move on with their lives. Nokia does not sell many tablets and gives up on the market. No N9xx for you.

Like it or not, you folks are Nokia's Marketing Department:D

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

It would be nice if we could get some structure. I'd be more than happy to contribute to faq-writing (provided it's about insanely easy subjects), but a high-level coordinator will be sorely needed.

I'd suggest a list of faq-volunteers is compiled somewhere, a coordinator is (s)elected among them and a list of subjects is then collected and presented for choosing/assigning.

I volunteer for coordinator only on the condition that I'm given absolute power. Oh, and I'll be needing a multi-terawatt laser on the Moon.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I agree, but boy this is tough problem to solve. I love to write and would happily contribute to the wiki, but
a) there's a lot of more 'senior' members who know more and
b) who would 'review' contributions for accuracy?

I really would enjoy helping as I think this is one of the most crucial aspects needed for this wonderful forum and the community it represents.

Should there be a 'wiki-manager'? Do we already have someone doing this? Reggie? How should/could this work?

Edit: I just saw Karel's post. I nominate him! Absolute power should be granted!

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

If over 80% of all new topics starting with "For the Wiki -..." actually result in a new Wiki page with something useful in it, I'll but it too... willing to try, just to see :-)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I was joking! There are a gazillion dudes/dudettes more qualified than me on this forum.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Ok, I just posted my first question.

As far as your 80% figure is concerned - remember these are traceable public promises by individual members so if they renegue on their promise then you 'know where they live'.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

In any case, that would be not the 'wiki way'.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Greyghost, you're coming at this from the wrong angle. The most experienced and knowledgeable members (this having nothing much to do with membership "seniority", BTW) are almost always the wrong persons to be writing Wiki pages. Yes, they like chatting away and arguing in the forums, and often drop useful information this way and that. But generally they don't *like* to write, in the sense of writing up a subject as you'd do in school. And if they do, the very fact that they understand the subject well makes it hard for them to explain it at the level of others who don't, not assuming some things are self-evident or well known, etc. Finally they could be be using their precious time for better things, like criticizing Nokia, flaming away at clueless newbies... or coding :-)

As I said a few posts earlier, better results can be achieved when it's someone who didn't know the answer, but is interested in it, and actually *likes* writing, that sums it up in the Wiki... So don't fret that you're not "senior" enough, or not technical enough : those are actually qualities in this matter, so dive !

There goes a).

As for b) it's a simple matter of human psychology. A hundred thousand wiki pages don't bloom overnight because creating structured information on anything out of a blank page is *hard work*. OTOH, criticizing is easy. So is reading up, tssk-tssk'ing and correcting a bit here, adding a bit there.
You'll see that if you go to the effort of summing up your own understanding of a topic in a new page, then post a link to it in the forum asking for corrections and contributions to it, you'll almost always get more "peer review" than you bargained for :-)

Are you out of your mind or something ? :)

edit: and about that multi-terawatt laser on the Moon, I have another idea for it... :-)

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Phew. Glad to see sanity hasn't been thrown completely out of the window.

Hmmm... Pray, do tell (steeples hands and puts on innocently-looking, yet eerily evil, interested face).

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

[QUOTE=Red;104689]Sungrove, people have complained about this sort of thing before. Did you search before posting this thread?


That's very funny Red. I love your joke. :D

I really like the constructive direction this thread has taken. I think it's easy to be sypthetic with all sides.
I do like the idea of a FAQ section so that folks can simply look to see if their question has been answered already. If successful, such a thing could be very effective with the simpler questions that tend to come up over and over again.
I'm not yet familiar with the WIKI, but as has been suggested, maybe that can be used to develope answers to the more complex problems . So that I may write out a step by step procedure to solve a problem. Then you can try it and then edit what I have written to add detail I may have left out or to reflect your experience with the problem.
Some may say that such a system already exists. It's just a matter of making use of it. If so, great, we apparently just need to make better use of it.
I would like such a system for both helping others and to effectively get more out of my Nokia.
NS

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I go by my word. I can contribute typing, proof reading and, some organizing and computer bandwidth for a FAQ. I do not think I am at the caliber of editing/providing technical questions. I think everybody agree a FAQ is ripe by now, all we need is some organization or guru status. They do not have to do running job or nuts and bolts, I will offer my help.


bun

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

Well, as a very close neighbour to the Kingdom of Belgium, one needs to be especially mindful of whatever happens over there these days, neh ? :)
Oh, it's not for me, it's for my friend Pitr, he has this little world domination side project :
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons...9&mode=classic
(and following)

The FAQ was already started.
 

I created the Wiki FAQ last night after reading the original post in this thread, and based on the discussion that Capt'n Corrupt started yesterday:
N810 and the Wiki: reducing redundant threads

I stayed up waaaay past my bedtime to create a basic structure and answer a few questions to get things started. (If anyone has a better structure or format the fix is easy... edit it. It may need revising eventually anyway if it gets too large.) And since I was on a roll, I also added a new article to the Wiki

So before you all went on and on in this thread about needing a FAQ in the Wiki, there was already a thread about it and the FAQ was already started. (Which you would have known if you had done a basic search before posting about how badly a FAQ needed.)

For all the talk about how a Wiki FAQ is the answer, only Red actually looked at the Wiki and perhaps gave a thought to starting it. And THAT is the reason these things usually fail... lots of talk and no action.

So here's your chance to prove me wrong. Add something to the FAQ. If you don't have the answers yourself, do a search to find a post with a good answer and simply link to that post. Or even just edit my answers if you can improve on them. I'd just like to see some of these complainers do SOMETHING to help themselves instead of relying on those who do all the helping already. And don't say you don't know how to edit a Wiki... I had never done it before last night either. I just did a little research and reading before starting.

And for those same people, who have probably read but ignored my .sig, a few days ago I created a custom search engine at Google for ITT, with some refinement terms. Try it. It works quite well... better than the ITT one in some ways. It may help you find the answer you need in order to create your first FAQ item.

Re: This question not searched, title OK?
 

I will promise to work on the wiki, I have never worked on one but it can't be that hard. I don't have the free time to be a leader though.

Re: The FAQ was already started.
 

[QUOTE=technut;104894]I created [

So before you all went on and on in this thread about needing a FAQ in the Wiki, there was already a thread about it and the FAQ was already started. (Which you would have known if you had done a basic search before posting about how badly a FAQ needed.)

For all the talk about how a Wiki FAQ is the answer, only Red actually looked at the Wiki and perhaps gave a thought to starting it. And THAT is the reason these things usually fail... lots of talk and no action.


Technut, what the heck is your problem? You are really a bleep, aren't you? Do you just have to be right? We are simply tryig to solve a problem here and you just have to wade in and start being critical. Yah, thanks for taking the constructive steps. But there you go again being the search police! I'd like to know who elected you. If you'd simply be more positive about the solution to this problem, it would probably go a lot further to solving it.
Yes we will use what you started, but according to you it will fail right?

NS