April 6, 2009 at 9:19 am
First, let's begin this with a round of applause for SSC's fearless leader, Steve. Whether as editor, referee, or babysitter, he does an outstanding job of keeping the tone at SSC professional. He consistently acts in a manner which is mature, balanced, patient, and understanding of the points of view of the OPs and the volunteers who answer their questions. In his recent podcast on Manners[/url], he reminds everyone about The Golden Rule without once taking a condescending tone.
(applause, thunderous applause)
That said, this thread is about poor posters. We're not talking about the newcomers who are groping blindly for answers without knowing the proper terminology to search BOL. They can usually be coached through providing the additional information needed, even through the English language barrier. Most of them are grateful, cooperative, and courteous. Some of them even respond positively to being sent the links about best practices for asking questions. We all enjoy helping them out.
This issue isn't even about the one-time posters who are obviously trying to get answers for exams or interview questions. Those generally get questioned, sometimes ridiculed, and disposed of in short order.
But there are also some people out there who are habitual poor posters. They have varying characteristics. Some are "abusive", some are not. Some have no interest in learning to fish, and some seem intent on demonstrating that they are smarter than anyone trying to help them. Most of them are generally unhelpful when you attempt to pry enough information out of them to actually frame a question that can be answered. All of them consume a great deal of time from whoever is currently trying to help them and cause a great deal of frustration, as they repeatedly demonstrate over a period of time that they will not or cannot get it.
Currently, we all have our personal blacklists of frustrating posters and sometimes post a warning in The Thread.
Without naming names, someone was recently warned in The Thread about the dangers of engaging a particular OP. The volunteer in question had the commendable attitude that the OP in question was just misunderstood and could be straightened out. Then the volunteer was shown a list of links to other threads started by the OP and decided that maybe his time could be better spent helping other needy souls. The volunteer appeared to be grateful at having been warned off.
I know I'm in the minority, but I think the practice of compiling and referring people to previous questions by the OP should be extended to new threads. All that is needed is a post that says, "For background look here." with links. No slandering of their character. No guesswork as to their motives. Potential volunteers judge for themselves, from previous threads, how an OP has treated others and been treated themselves. If Steve agreed as to the value of this approach, there could even be an option to click on someone's name to see a list of other threads they originated.
Here are the pro's.
1. Volunteers have a right to know when they are about to step into a pit of quicksand.
2. Time spent helping out a single problem OP could often be spent helping a lot of other OPs.
3 Not everyone participates in The Thread, and would have a chance to see a warning there.
4. "Just walking away" prevents personal frustration, but does nothing to modify the OPs behavior, unless everyone does it.
5. This practice is kindler and gentler than a ban or a "twit list."
5a. Problem OPS are still free to ask for help, and anyone feeling saintly can still try to assist them. (But if I ever see Lynn Pettis post a warning, then I'm definitely following him into the desert.)
5b. It's better to make someone aware that their behavior is driving off possible assistance, than it is to just talk about them behind their back.
5c. If an OP straightens their act out, people can quit posting the warning notice, or speak up for them.
Some people already have taken shots at this approach, and will probably continue to do so. (I am braced for the beating I'm about to take.) But if anyone else sees merit in this approach, or has a better idea, please join in as well.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
April 6, 2009 at 9:55 am
Oh no! not a "twit list" :blink:
I'll end up on it for a different reason that the one you're thinking of :w00t:
as in being a real twit :pinch:
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.
April 6, 2009 at 9:55 am
Bob, Have you noticed that I don't seem to stay out in the desert long? I think the solitude helps focus and energize! 😉
Just so you know, you can find all the posts (or most) that an OP has been involved with. You have to go to the OP's profile and the click on the link "Find all topics this member has participated within..." in Tools under Personal Information.
I'll have to reread your original post a few times and ponder before I comment further. Right now, though, I need to get back to work.
See you in the desert! 😉
April 6, 2009 at 10:01 am
Bob Hovious (4/6/2009)
I know I'm in the minority, but I think the practice of compiling and referring people to previous questions by the OP should be extended to new threads. All that is needed is a post that says, "For background look here." with links.
Poster's posting history is already available on their profile. I have no objection to making that available in the sidebar (below rank and posts possibly). It would certainly make it easier to look up a person's posting history as I do from time to time.
I am, however, strongly against any attempt to 'name and shame'. There are people that I won't reply to because I can't stand their way of posting or I don't have the patience. That may well be more of a reflection on my character than theirs. For me to indicate that a person is not worth of help because I don't like them, is arrogant and unacceptable behaviour.
The only reason I posted the links that you refer to was to show the person in question that we really had tried to help in the past, not to warn him not to help out.
Put the link there and let people decide for themselves.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
April 6, 2009 at 10:25 am
David, I'm sure people would stick me on that list along with you. 😉
Yes, Lynn, I've always seen the desert as a place of spiritual retreat for you.
I've looked at the thread participation link before, but it's kind of buried away. What's needed is a more quickly accessible option that focused on threads originated by the OP. It's an important distinction.
Hopefully, I don't come off sounding like a heartless buzzard about this. The number of truly problem posters that I'm personally aware of is quite small, and they have as much right to seek help as anyone else. I wrestled with my personal problem child for a long time before deciding that my sanity was more important than his problem.
My concern is for the unwitting people who get dragged into a mess they might have chosen to avoid, if they had more information on the front end. Also, borrowing from my wife's expertise in applied behavior analysis, ignoring bad behavior can be an effective way of extinguishing it, but only if all sources of recognition are cut off. The ones I'm thinking about don't care who holds their hand just so long as someone does.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
April 6, 2009 at 10:32 am
Bob Hovious (4/6/2009)
Some people already have taken shots at this approach, and will probably continue to do so. (I am braced for the beating I'm about to take.) But if anyone else sees merit in this approach, or has a better idea, please join in as well.
No beating Bob, just discussion as we have all learned from the Manners[/url] editorial, right?
I tend to agree with Gail, but I do see your point.
So far I only have 2 folks whose user names I remember that I would ignore, or warn others about. Of course, that's just because I have dealt with them recently. I actually remember names of people I have had positive experiences with and forget the names of the ones that I have had negative experiences with. The problem with this is that I almost always get back involved with the negative ones again, but, oh well, I can deal with it.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
April 6, 2009 at 10:33 am
Bob Hovious (4/6/2009)
I've looked at the thread participation link before, but it's kind of buried away. What's needed is a more quickly accessible option that focused on threads originated by the OP. It's an important distinction.
It's there. Look on the right hand side of the profile page. There are two links there. One is posts by this person, other one is threads started by this person.
As i said, I'd welcome having that on the side bar.
Also, borrowing from my wife's expertise in applied behavior analysis, ignoring bad behavior can be an effective way of extinguishing it, but only if all sources of recognition are cut off. The ones I'm thinking about don't care who holds their hand just so long as someone does.
Thing is, someone will always jump in to help. The help they offer may not be useful, accurate, correct or usable, but someone will jump in, whether they're trying to help or just trying to get their post count up. There's no way to stop that short of locking threads.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
April 6, 2009 at 10:37 am
Gail, I simply have to reply to the following:
That may well be more of a reflection on my character than theirs.
For me to indicate that a person is not worth of help because I don't like them, is arrogant and unacceptable behaviour.
The only reason I posted the links that you refer to was to show the person in question that we really had tried to help in the past, not to warn him not to help out.
Put the link there and let people decide for themselves.
Surprise. I agree with everything you just said.
The only thing we seem differ on is how to make people aware of the link, and that it might be worth checking sometimes. There is no basic training for us newbie volunteers. How would that best be accomplished?
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
April 6, 2009 at 10:48 am
Bob,
I agree with you on all of that. Such posters does not deserve any help unless they change their behaviour. But the problem is, one can't be aware of all of such posters?
Gail,
The posted links just cleared the dust from my eyes:doze:, I wasn't aware of his posting history at that time.
--Ramesh
April 6, 2009 at 10:55 am
I have utmost three such posters in my mind right now..., and thanks Bob for letting me know about.
--Ramesh
April 6, 2009 at 10:56 am
One is posts by this person, other one is threads started by this person.
Something amiss here. I see only threads in which this person has participated, not originated. If my tired old eyes just can't find it, then I apologize for the oversight.
Thing is, someone will always jump in to help. The help they offer may not be useful, accurate, correct or usable, but someone will jump in, whether they're trying to help or just trying to get their post count up. There's no way to stop that short of locking threads.
I know, and then other people will jump in to fix the bad information. That isn't something that should be stopped, as long as people know what they are getting into. We're all adults.
Gail, I keep thinking that what we have here is failure to communicate. I am not advocating banning anyone from SSC. I'm not advocating posting a twit list, although The Thread was being used for that purpose. I'm looking for a workable alternative to "name and shame." People shouldn't be discouraged from helping, whether by my opinion of a given person or by your opinion. If the "helpers" know where to find the information to decide for themselves, I think that's as good as it can ever get.
__________________________________________________
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. -- Friedrich Schiller
Stop, children, what's that sound? Everybody look what's going down. -- Stephen Stills
April 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
I'm really against a black list. I'm far too likely to end up on it one day. Plust I'm probably not going to consult it until I've already stepped into the bear trap on any given post. Further, it seems like it would just antagonize people for no reason. I love the free-wheeling nature around here. I think it's fair to warn people, as in real life, your freedom to flail wildly with your fists ends about at the point where my nose starts.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
April 6, 2009 at 12:11 pm
The Thread started as a rant about the state of questions posted by some people. But I think it morphed over time. Yes, we still go there to rant and point out "interesting" posts and such. It has become, in my mind, The Water Cooler as well. I realize it is hugh and would be difficult to reread everything, but if you took the time to review parts of it, you'd find that a group of us have learned more about others that we'd never have learned unless we lived near each other or worked together for the same company.
We have, in many ways, become more of a family of professionals. The Thread as become a refuge, a place to seek help in areas where we have found ourselves wanting, or just plain frustrated and asking someone esle to just look and see if we are missing something (babelfish ring a bell?).
I don't want to create a formal black list or twit list of any sort. Yes, people wanting to help people should be able to review what types of threads the people they are trying to help have started, but I'd also say participated in. Perhaps adding those links on the profile page to the popup menu when you click on a persons "name" would make sense. Make it more accessible for review if someone wishes to do so.
We need to encourage polite interaction and discussion. A short list on etiquette would be beneficial, but it would be difficult to be sure that everyone signing up to be a member of SSC actually reads and understands it.
April 6, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Bob Hovious (4/6/2009)
Something amiss here. I see only threads in which this person has participated, not originated. If my tired old eyes just can't find it, then I apologize for the oversight.
My apologies, it is threads participated in. Still, for the majority of people, threads started and thread participated in won't be too different
Gail, I keep thinking that what we have here is failure to communicate.
Not really. I know what you mean, I'm just taking the extreme opposite position
If the "helpers" know where to find the information to decide for themselves, I think that's as good as it can ever get.
A link in the sidebar (or the drop down from a person's username) that's not a javascript reference, that lists their threads is good enough for me.
I don't like the idea of someone posting links to history on a thread that a person starts (unless it's just a 'please direct replies here'). My point of view, that is as effective a 'name and shame' as a twit list. I've seen that kind of thing done elsewhere, and it encourages antagonism and it spirals out of control fast.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
April 6, 2009 at 3:17 pm
I doubt I'd use a list of threads originated. I tend to try to help if I think I can, regardless of past circumstances. I most certainly don't keep any sort of blacklist.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 78 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply