I almost never post, and am just a casual observer -- but I think that this is probably the most level headed and cogent addition to the discussion. It may be summed up by saying "if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it at all" or in this case "if you have no answer to give (or desire to give no answer) then do not respond at all". For myself, I have always had fun reading what others post and learning from that. I have nothing other to add to the situation except to say that I agree that RTFM is absolutely useless -- and that the person writing and reading that statement are much better off without the statement being said -- but again, I am a relative outsider since I really don't post any questions and sit on the sidelines. I might say that over the last while I have been here, reading these messages the reason I have decided to sit on the sidelines is precisely because I do not wish to get trampled on. Perhaps, then, one could conclude that the RTFM attitude has worked. I would only say that there is a reason why this list has only 2000 people and StackOverflow is -- well -- overflowed, but then again, this may be by design also. The members of this list may prefer fewer rather than greater numbers of members -- I think that this is a mistake but whatever. It is an interesting social experiment -- I often wonder if people would talk and react the same way in public as they do on the internet (this list). It may also be the difference between those who are more into egalitarianism and those who are not and the difference between how they react. I have rarely had anything to say about anything on this list, because I simply am not at that level in EE -- but if I one day know the answer to someone's question, I would be more apt to help them with that answer and give them the tools to learn more about the subject manner than simply say RTFM. I treat posting to a public forum in the same way as I would talking at a meeting -- if I have nothing interesting to add, I cannot imagine why I would waste my time and the time of those around me to simply stroke my own ego. Imagine if someone in a meeting asked a relatively easy question about the subject matter, I have very little belief anyone would waste the time to say RTFM or to labaste them for it. Anyways, I think M. Adam Davis is absolutely correct -- for what ever that is worth (admitedly very little) Aleksei On 5 March 2010 15:45, 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