The bar for RTFM, IMO, has gotten too low. The point of a forum like this is that, while Google DOES frequently know the answer, and it usually IS in TFM, neither of those facts is helpful if I can't trick Google or TFM into yielding the answer- a 250-page datasheet or 1.7 million search results are too large a pool to be useful. If I ask a question, it's because I haven't been able to get Google or the manual to yield the info. OR, it's because I'm seeing bizarre behavior, but I don't even know where to look for insight into that behavior in a datasheet and Google is of no help. I'm not asking you to look it up in a datasheet for me- if you know the answer, or know where it is in the datasheet, great. If not, don't say anything. RTFM is shorthand for "I'm better than you but I don't have time to prove it". IMO, anyone responding in a public forum who is anything but courteous in their conduct (at least, in the first message) is responding for the wrong reason- out of a desire to prove personal superiority rather than to be genuinely helpful. Mike H. On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, M. Adam Davis wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bob Blick wrote: > > There's a reason why the term "RTFM" came into existence. There's got to > > be a way to tell someone to look something up for themselves > > I disagree - there doesn't have to be a way to tell people to look it > up themselves. Take, for example, this programming question website: > > http://www.stackoverflow.com > > Peruse a few questions. None contain answers that consist soley of > "RTFM" or even google search links. > > I don't see a downside to requiring that responses be in the form of > an answer (rather than a reference to the answer - include a reference > if one exists, but at least give the answer first). > > If someone is peppering the list with questions and it annoys you, let > the admins know - they are the appropriate people to discourage users > from overusing the list. > > Perhaps this can be analogy-ized: > > You have glasses of water on a table in front of you. There is a well > 20 feet away behind some brush. Someone comes up and asks for a > drink. Do you: > 1) Give them a glass of water > 2) Tell them they have to go to the well > 3) Give them some water, and tell them where the well is > > I agree that option 1 can possibly be considered a poor choice in the > long term - if you aren't there, they go thirsty. But keep in mind > that there's about 2,000 people with tables full of glasses of water, > and even if you aren't around, they are _very_ unlikely to go thirsty. > It's not a bad option. > > Option 2 isn't unreasonable, but it's rude/impolite/arrogant to have > the item they need, and instead take the time to tell them you are not > going to give it to them. It's not really wrong to take option 2 - > they'll still get what they need if they also have the tools to use > the well. > > Option 3 seems to be the best of both worlds. They slake their thirst > immediately, and know that they can go to the well in the future. It > turns option 1 into a learning experience, and eliminates or at least > reduces the offense of 2. > > In some cases you don't have water (ie, don't know the answer) but you > know which well to go to among all the wells available. Giving a very > precise reference or pointer is a great course of action. But > pointing in the general direction of all the wells, and saying, "The > water you need is among those 30,000 wells. I suggest you start > sipping." is rude and inconsiderate. Giving them directions to the > exact well, or even narrowing it down is good, but saying, "It's in an > app note on microchip" doesn't really make it easier to find the right > information. In this case I concede that giving an indirect answer > may be better than none at all, but it can be presented so much better > than, "Leave my table and find the well yourself" (ie, RTFM) > > In a recent example, a list member asked a very specific set of > questions about a particular protocol that is partially documented on > the internet. He received several responses that answered his > questions point by point. He received one response that said, "You > should have searched the wells first. Here's directions to a well," > but unfortunately that well did not answer even half of his questions. > Another answer was essentially, "I can't believe you didn't search > the wells." with absolutely nothing else of use. > > But the interesting thing is that anyone who has spent any significant > amount of time on this list knows: > > The list itself is a wellspring. > > Yes, one could go ask google, and one could go ask the datasheets, and > one could go ask wikipedia, but when one can get all their answers in > one spot in significantly less time, then why should we punish or > belittle them for saving time and frustration? In the example above > there were questions that cannot be found on the internet (crazy, I > know, but sometimes the internet doesn't know everything), AND anyone > paying attention to the list for several months knows there are some > crazy-smart people on here that know a LOT about the particular > subject in that example. > > "It's in the datasheet or app note" or "Google knows the answer" is no > longer useful to the beginner: > - Manufacturer websites are very difficult to find the needed information > - Google can be _very_ hard to use if you aren't using the right search > terms > - Once the information is found, and beginner may have significant > difficulty understanding where their specific answer is amongst the > 300 pages of datasheet. It may seem easy to us, but even the simpler > Microchip datasheets are daunting to even college educated EEs new to > a particular device/company/industry. > > If one doesn't have time to give very clear directions, AND one knows > that very few others on the list will be able to help, then a quick, > "I know it's in the datasheet, but can't remember what the answer is, > or even where in the data sheet it is. Datasheet can be found by > searching '16C54' at microchip.com" _is_ better than nothing, and > gives more information than "RTFM". (I actually had someone ask a > 16C54 question today - talk about a blast from the past!). > > But I don't see a valid reason to wave one's hand in the general > direction of the eighty thousand wells and say, "It's over there > somewhere, start sipping." At best it's noise, and at worst it's rude > and inconsiderate. > > So my arguments against answers that consists only of RTFM are: > > A) An answer now, and specific directions to the well is a far better > option when possible. > B) There is no reason to push people away from the list for even > simple beginner questions, telling them to visit another well. The > list should be that well, while also helping them understand, over > time, where and how to search other wells. > C) Beginners are better off when the specific well is pointed out > rather than a group of wells - searching is hard enough when one knows > what one is doing, nevermind when they don't know what they're doing. > D) Contributions to the list should add to the total group knowledge, > ability and skill. Answers consisting of "RTFM" add nothing. > > So this is my response to Bob's call to action: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bob Blick wrote: > > I think a little thinking needs to be applied. The Piclist has > > lots of helpful and smart people. Let's use them all and grow our > > way out of this. > > All IMHO, of course. > > -Adam > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist