a wiki or whatever, and redirect people there? We don’t want
ruby-talk to become ruby-design-advocacy, right?
i am relatively new to newsgroups in general,
Welcome!
but it seems like comments like these suggest a move towards
splitting into sub-groups may be in order?
It has been proposed a while ago, and I don’t think it’s a good
solution to this particular problem. We’re not dealing with answering
easy questions versus hard questions, we’re dealing with answering
recurring questions and hopefully doing that just once; that’s the job
of a web page rather than of a mailing list.
Massimiliano
The article Simon linked was a great read (about setting up the Perl beginners
mailing list). I think the same would be a good idea for Ruby, except that
maybe we don’t have the right size for it.
Anway, if we don’t fork the mailing list in this direction, we could at least
see how PragDave’s FAQ web page is going. This was a great start; all I want
to suggest is a process:
When user A asks a question, and receives a good answer, social
pressure (gentle, of course) should be applied to user A to post
a follow-up summary of the problem and solution. An experienced
member of the list should then input that information to the FAQ.
The article Simon linked was a great read (about setting up the Perl beginners
mailing list). I think the same would be a good idea for Ruby, except that
maybe we don’t have the right size for it.
It might be a solution, but (I repeat myself) it’s a solution to a
different problem. It’s not beginners’ questions that waste
bandwidth, and I’ve never seen anybody here frowning on them. It’s
just a finite number of repeated questions.
Anway, if we don’t fork the mailing list in this direction, we could at least
see how PragDave’s FAQ web page is going. This was a great start;
I agree.
all I want to suggest is a process:
When user A asks a question, and receives a good answer, social
pressure (gentle, of course) should be applied to user A to post
a follow-up summary of the problem and solution. An experienced
member of the list should then input that information to the FAQ.
How does that sound?
Newcomer: Why doesn’t Ruby allow overloading of the `=’ operator?‘’
This is a frequently asked question. If we answer, are you willing
to sum up the answers you get so that we can put them online?
Can you please sum up the question and answer so we can preserve it?
Newcomer: OK, …
Nice idea, but I think you’ll find 90% of the time the newcomer just wants
their question answered, and may even unsubscribe when they’ve got the
answer they want. The answerer is the one with the goodwill, utilize that.
···
–
“It [Starbucks Coffee]'s probably filled with MIND EXPANDING DRUGS, mind you.
Now /they’re/ fun things to take of a Saturday evening. Why kick a tramp to
death whilst high on smacky booze in order to get a mention on BBC NEWS when
you can watch the same tramp excrete spiders from his eyelids?” - J-P
Can you please sum up the question and answer so we can preserve it?
Newcomer: OK, …
Nice idea, but I think you’ll find 90% of the time the newcomer just wants
their question answered, and may even unsubscribe when they’ve got the
answer they want. The answerer is the one with the goodwill, utilize that.
True, but:
for an easy question (exactly the type of thing we want to gather)
there will usually be more than one answerer
if the newbie summarises it the FAQ will reflect a newbie point of
view
many times, the original poster replies with a “thanks”, so these
ones are not likely to hit and run
In short, I believe the kinds of questions we want summarised and FAQed will be
nicely handled by the person asking the question. At least in enough cases to
build a reasonable body of knowledge.
Thanks, Simon. I’ve noticed that threads like “Thoughts about Ruby” are
typically answered by (at least) two kinds of replies:
An attempt at a goodwill reply, but possibly incomplete or technically
incorrect, and
A reply that makes no attempt at answering the question, but rather
expresses thinly veiled criticism of the newbie’s last/favorite language and
interprets the question as an attack on Ruby.
I submit that these “long” threads are due more to the gregarious and/or
contentious nature of regulars rather than newbies.
What if the person with the onus to summarize and post to the FAQ is whoever
is most irritated with the thread and least wants to see it repeated?
Obligatory smiley
···
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 5:46 pm, Simon Cozens wrote:
Can you please sum up the question and answer so we can preserve it?
Newcomer: OK, …
Nice idea, but I think you’ll find 90% of the time the newcomer just wants
their question answered, and may even unsubscribe when they’ve got the
answer they want. The answerer is the one with the goodwill, utilize that.
–
“Every real thought on every real subject knocks the
wind out of somebody or other.”
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.
if the newbie summarises it the FAQ will reflect a newbie point of
view
Plus - when a newbie searches, they’ll search for terms they’re familiar
with.
I don’t know how many times I’ve tried to learn something new, only to find
I just had the wrong search word(s).
If a person who’s new to a topic can’t find the answers they need when they
need them - the majority will say that the topic is stupid…
… note I said topic…
Ruby will look stupid if information about Ruby isn’t given to the ‘learning
user’ when they need it.
-Rich
P.s. - As an example… I’m a moderator at a forum… and I had someone rip
me a new one because I hadn’t created any threads with the word ‘newbie’ in
the subject… since obviously a newbie would search for… newbie. I
personally have a strong dislike for the word ‘newbie’ (it’s too easy to
sound like you’re making fun of someone), so I never would have thought of
using that term.
P.p.s - Can I coin the term - ‘The Newbie way’… instead of ‘The Ruby Way’
??
What if the person with the onus to summarize and post to the FAQ is whoever
is most irritated with the thread and least wants to see it repeated?
There’s a good argument for that, since the author can then, with even greater
smug satisfaction, admonish the Nuby to RTFFAQ, fully aware that the answer is
indeed there to be found.
P.s. - As an example… I’m a moderator at a forum… and I had someone rip
me a new one because I hadn’t created any threads with the word ‘newbie’ in
the subject… since obviously a newbie would search for… newbie. I
personally have a strong dislike for the word ‘newbie’ (it’s too easy to
sound like you’re making fun of someone), so I never would have thought of
using that term.
