Where have all the experienced users gone?

ruby-talk
41

Michael T. Richter wrote:

I've always found that killfiles work extremely well for getting rid of
empty content. For whichever definition of "empty" people choose to
use.

I think I have two names in my killfile. I use some "kill on inspection" guidelines, though:

* Top posting
* Scripting-kiddie spelling (e.g., Windoze)
* General derision towards people who worship
   the "wrong" OS|IDE|text editor

···

--
James Britt

"I never dispute another person's delusions, just their facts."
   - Len Bullard

42

Robert Dober wrote:

Hi Tom :wink: (Guy is "ts" BTW) maybe the later, ruby-beginner might be too
negative, what you think?

Yes. that's possible true, although it might also be comforting to
those who are beginners.

Name not withstanding, the significant difficulty with a separate
mailing list is getting people to use it and for the purposes intended.
I have some experience in this. I once attempted to start a ruby-rcr
list. It was only mildly successful, but it was clear that it could not
flourish without wider support from the core community, so it
eventually evaporated (which is unfortunate as I think it's needed more
than ever now). A new vs. experienced split of ruby-talk will have some
of the same problems. Without committed support it won't work. And
ensuring that experienced users visit the beginners list is an added
challenge.

Having reread over all the posts to this thread here is the conclusion
I am drawing....

At some point the split may be necessary, maybe we are at that point.
But one of the great things about this list has been the cordial
intermingling of new and expert user. I think many would agree that it
would be nice if we could keep it that way. Perhaps we can find a way
to "upscale" the list to work better for both beginner and experienced
users alike.

In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,

"It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."

I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.

What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?

T.

43

Definitely some good advice in there, but I don't care for the tone of this article much.

James Edward Gray II

···

On Dec 23, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Edwin Fine wrote:

I still like Eric Raymond's classic FAQ:

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

44

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

As has been pointed out, we do have an FAQ.

I feel a bot like this hurts the community interaction. Answers are
best let to the users, in my opinion.

I agree, but questions like "What is the best IDE?" could certainly be
answered by providing links to numerous previous discussions, no?

Ah, and this is a FAQ that I (obviously) was not aware of. See how
publicized it is? :wink: I shall bookmark it and refer people to it as
needed...thanks for pointing that out. I missed it earlier I suppose.

  I wasn't aware of the FAQ as well. What about a list footer pointing
to a few useful resources ? I don't think it would hinder reading a lot,
but my opinion is that the message would slowly sink in (I speak with
experience, as I do need such a thing to remember where I can look for
resources).

  What do you think about it ?

  Vince

···

--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/

45

Again, see perl-beginners and Perl Monks. This just isn't the case there, though that is the extent of my experience in this area.

James Edward Gray II

···

On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Paul Lutus wrote:

James Edward Gray II wrote:

On Dec 19, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

This is why many times there will be "xxx-talk" (or "xxx-users") and
"xxx-newbie" lists. I think perhaps Ruby has reached that "critical
mass" point where this split is in order (even though i'm sure this
has been discussed a number of times and decided against).

I was on perl-beginners for years. When I came to the Ruby community
I asked for the equivalent, but many members felt it wasn't needed or
even desired. While I think I came around to their point of view
over time, I'm not sure it still holds.

Though, many would probably argue that "no experienced programmer
would visit the newbie list."

I've seen this argument multiple times, but it certainly doesn't hold
true in the Perl community. See perl-beginners and Perl Monks.
Plenty of knowledgeable help on both. I enjoy helping others and
stayed on the list to do so when I was past the beginner stage, as
just one example.

To make this whole thing effective, though, the residents of this list
would have to be stringent about telling people to "take it to the
newbies" if their question is something that belongs there.

Now this I don't feel is needed or desired. I don't think we want to
start turning anyone away, period. There's no reason questions can't
still be answered here.

I've had this debate in a number of forums for different languages over the
years, and I have always taken your position on this. If a newbie newsgroup
were to be set up, IMHO it would decrease the quality of the replies to
newbies, and in some cases lead to a "blind leading the blind" syndrome.

Also, where this has been tried, it sometimes leads to newbies gradually
abandoning the newbie newsgroup because of the poor quality of replies and
also to avoid the stigma of posting to a newbie newsgroup.

46

Ruby has a "core" and a "talk" list today:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

James Edward Gray II

···

On Dec 19, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Tom Werner wrote:

James Edward Gray II wrote:

On Dec 19, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

This is why many times there will be "xxx-talk" (or "xxx-users") and
"xxx-newbie" lists. I think perhaps Ruby has reached that "critical
mass" point where this split is in order (even though i'm sure this
has been discussed a number of times and decided against).

I was on perl-beginners for years. When I came to the Ruby community I asked for the equivalent, but many members felt it wasn't needed or even desired. While I think I came around to their point of view over time, I'm not sure it still holds.

In addition to the newbie/guru split, there is also the possibility of a core/user split. The core list would be for discussions relating to the current and future status of the Ruby language itself, the core libraries, and more theoretical questions. The user list would be for discussions about 3rd party libraries, installation problems, and IDEs. =)

This split has the benefit of not making anyone feel like a newb, while still creating a separate area for hard core Rubyists to talk about serious issues without all the noise.

47

This is why many times there will be "xxx-talk" (or "xxx-users") and
"xxx-newbie" lists. I think perhaps Ruby has reached that "critical
mass" point where this split is in order (even though i'm sure this
has been discussed a number of times and decided against).

I was on perl-beginners for years. When I came to the Ruby community I asked for the equivalent, but many members felt it wasn't needed or even desired. While I think I came around to their point of view over time, I'm not sure it still holds.

In addition to the newbie/guru split, there is also the possibility of a core/user split. The core list would be for discussions relating to the current and future status of the Ruby language itself, the core libraries, and more theoretical questions. The user list would be for discussions about 3rd party libraries, installation problems, and IDEs. =)

This split has the benefit of not making anyone feel like a newb, while still creating a separate area for hard core Rubyists to talk about serious issues without all the noise.

Tom

I'm a newbie (to Ruby, and also to mailing lists somehow). What about the following:
There would be two lists: one newbies, and one "guru". Each message sent to one is also sent to the other, but with a tag: Like [NEWBIES] and [GURU].
It has the advantage that the lists are not really split, and the choice is let to each one to choose if she wants to read or not the newbies or guru messages.
I'm not sure it's really different from the standard two separate lists though...

Julien

48

is it me, or are others also thinking that a thread complaining about
experienced users evaporating that also aims to reduce newbie posts might just
succeed in reducing the volume on ruby-talk to zero?

:wink:

-a

···

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Rob Sanheim wrote:

As others have pointed out, and I mentioned in a thread I started just on
the faq, its poorly publicized, out of date, and is easily confused with the
short (basically unhelpful) rubycentral.com faq. Fixing these issues could
go a long way towards cutting off some of the newbie questions.

--
if you find yourself slandering anybody, first imagine that your mouth is
filled with excrement. it will break you of the habit quickly enough. - the
dalai lama

49

Paul Lutus wrote:

Digression. My biggest annoyance about this forum is the degree to which
posts are not properly disseminated. Sometimes I reply to a post and the
originator very clearly never sees the reply even though it appears in
Usenet, or I see a reply to a post, the original of which never appears on
the Usenet forum. Sometimes the latter case becomes one of seeing only one
side of an exchange.

This problem would be solved by making this forum a pure, old-style Usenet
newsgroup with no imperfect connections to other ways of reading and
posting, but that simple arrangement seems to be falling out of favor for
some reason in modern times.

I agree with you there. it certainly doesn't help the situation. add to
it that some experinced readers are filtering the list, and we are
seeing a fari bit of "talking past each other" --which only
exhaserbates the issues.

t.

50

I tend more toward thread/subject killing (although I am far more
liberal in my individual killfiling than you are). There is a point
past which most threads descend into noise and after that point the odds
of seeing anything useful or interesting pop up are about zero. So I
have by now a few hundred killfile entries across my mailing lists. I
periodically cull the old ones, though.

···

On Wed, 2006-20-12 at 14:51 +0900, James Britt wrote:

I think I have two names in my killfile. I use some "kill on
inspection" guidelines, though:

* Top posting
* Scripting-kiddie spelling (e.g., Windoze)
* General derision towards people who worship
   the "wrong" OS|IDE|text editor

--
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter@gmail.com, mtr1966@hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter@hotmail.com, mtr1966@hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966@jabber.cn

"I would not flinch from sacrificing a million lives for India's
liberty!" --Mahatma Gandhi

51

Trans wrote:

Robert Dober wrote:

> Hi Tom :wink: (Guy is "ts" BTW) maybe the later, ruby-beginner might be too
> negative, what you think?

Yes. that's possible true, although it might also be comforting to
those who are beginners.

Name not withstanding, the significant difficulty with a separate
mailing list is getting people to use it and for the purposes intended.
I have some experience in this. I once attempted to start a ruby-rcr
list. It was only mildly successful, but it was clear that it could not
flourish without wider support from the core community, so it
eventually evaporated (which is unfortunate as I think it's needed more
than ever now). A new vs. experienced split of ruby-talk will have some
of the same problems. Without committed support it won't work. And
ensuring that experienced users visit the beginners list is an added
challenge.

Having reread over all the posts to this thread here is the conclusion
I am drawing....

At some point the split may be necessary, maybe we are at that point.
But one of the great things about this list has been the cordial
intermingling of new and expert user. I think many would agree that it
would be nice if we could keep it that way. Perhaps we can find a way
to "upscale" the list to work better for both beginner and experienced
users alike.

In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,

"It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."

I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.

What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?

I'm curious. Did anyone recieve/read this? I'm surprised no one has
replied to it, even if it's just to say "dumb idea".

T.

52

Likewise the ocaml-beginners mailing list, which is a friendly and
supportive place that encourages me to ask questions I'd perhaps be
hesitant about cluttering the 'seniors' mailing list with. Lots of
experienced people hanging around answering questions, too.

martin

···

On 12/20/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Paul Lutus wrote:
>
> Also, where this has been tried, it sometimes leads to newbies
> gradually
> abandoning the newbie newsgroup because of the poor quality of
> replies and
> also to avoid the stigma of posting to a newbie newsgroup.

Again, see perl-beginners and Perl Monks. This just isn't the case
there, though that is the extent of my experience in this area.

53

There would be two lists: one newbies, and one "guru". Each message sent
to one is also sent to the other, but with a tag: Like [NEWBIES] and [GURU].
It has the advantage that the lists are not really split, and the choice
is let to each one to choose if she wants to read or not the newbies or
guru messages.
I'm not sure it's really different from the standard two separate lists
though...

Yeah, and you add an extra step into the sending process, and I'm not
sure if that would really work (especially if there would have to be
another layer of redirection like the current gateways).

Even so, I'm not really sure "guru" is the right tag for it; I think
that most people just want the "Where is tehRuby compiler?" and
"What's the best Ruby book?" questions off the talk list, since there
is really not much useful talk involved. I think perhaps simply
maintaining the talk lists and providing a newbie list may be the best
solution (in my mind, at least).

Also, perhaps the Ruby lang site could offer a search box right there
on the mailing list page? This could be for people who have a
question that has already been answered won't be tempted to join the
list just to ask.

--Jeremy

···

On 12/19/06, Julien Gaugaz <gaugaz@l3s.de> wrote:

>>> This is why many times there will be "xxx-talk" (or "xxx-users") and
>>> "xxx-newbie" lists. I think perhaps Ruby has reached that "critical
>>> mass" point where this split is in order (even though i'm sure this
>>> has been discussed a number of times and decided against).
>>
>> I was on perl-beginners for years. When I came to the Ruby community
>> I asked for the equivalent, but many members felt it wasn't needed or
>> even desired. While I think I came around to their point of view
>> over time, I'm not sure it still holds.
>>
>
> In addition to the newbie/guru split, there is also the possibility of
> a core/user split. The core list would be for discussions relating to
> the current and future status of the Ruby language itself, the core
> libraries, and more theoretical questions. The user list would be for
> discussions about 3rd party libraries, installation problems, and
> IDEs. =)
>
> This split has the benefit of not making anyone feel like a newb,
> while still creating a separate area for hard core Rubyists to talk
> about serious issues without all the noise.
>
> Tom
I'm a newbie (to Ruby, and also to mailing lists somehow). What about
the following:
There would be two lists: one newbies, and one "guru". Each message sent
to one is also sent to the other, but with a tag: Like [NEWBIES] and [GURU].
It has the advantage that the lists are not really split, and the choice
is let to each one to choose if she wants to read or not the newbies or
guru messages.
I'm not sure it's really different from the standard two separate lists
though...

Julien

54

now ara, why'd you have to go and curse us like that :wink:

no, seriously, it doesn't help us to try to ignore it if its happening.
and it seems enough people have noticed. maybe there is nothing to be
done about it, but condsider if the trend continues....

so i think it's important to at least try to understand the trend --it
may well mean a great deal to the future of what has long been THE
PLACE for the english-speaking ruby community.

t.

···

ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Rob Sanheim wrote:

> As others have pointed out, and I mentioned in a thread I started just on
> the faq, its poorly publicized, out of date, and is easily confused with the
> short (basically unhelpful) rubycentral.com faq. Fixing these issues could
> go a long way towards cutting off some of the newbie questions.

is it me, or are others also thinking that a thread complaining about
experienced users evaporating that also aims to reduce newbie posts might just
succeed in reducing the volume on ruby-talk to zero?

:wink:

55

I received and read it - but since I could not provide good feedback... It sounds like a good idea but I wonder how it will work in practice. This might not be a problem in a newsgroup but for a mailing list this automated reply could easily trigger spam filters etc. Generally I have a tendency against stuff that automatically increases traffic but it still might well be worth a try. Dunno...

Regards

  robert

···

On 23.12.2006 15:16, Trans wrote:

Trans wrote:

Robert Dober wrote:

In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,

"It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."

I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.

What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?

I'm curious. Did anyone recieve/read this? I'm surprised no one has
replied to it, even if it's just to say "dumb idea".

56

I don't think we should have a "beginners" list. A ruby-help and a
ruby-talk would be good. Ruby talk could have theory questions,
project announcements, and insightful discussions, ruby-help could be
the beginners list, and also general help questions.

···

On 12/19/06, Martin DeMello <martindemello@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/20/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Paul Lutus wrote:
> >
> > Also, where this has been tried, it sometimes leads to newbies
> > gradually
> > abandoning the newbie newsgroup because of the poor quality of
> > replies and
> > also to avoid the stigma of posting to a newbie newsgroup.
>
> Again, see perl-beginners and Perl Monks. This just isn't the case
> there, though that is the extent of my experience in this area.

Likewise the ocaml-beginners mailing list, which is a friendly and
supportive place that encourages me to ask questions I'd perhaps be
hesitant about cluttering the 'seniors' mailing list with. Lots of
experienced people hanging around answering questions, too.

martin

--
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com

57

There's so many good posts on this topic I don't really know who to quote so
I won't quote anyone.

I've noticed the same thing, that there seem to be less and less posts by
experienced ppl. I've been watching the list for a year or so and the
landscape IMHO has changed quite a bit.

I've been addicted to both the ruby-talk and rails mailing lists for quite a
while but now find that I am drawn more towards the blogs of those in the
know, and the comments to their posts more than the ML. It's not quite as
interactive, but I'm not being overwhelmed by trying to follow every post on
the list either.

58

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

There would be two lists: one newbies, and one "guru". Each message sent
to one is also sent to the other, but with a tag: Like [NEWBIES] and [GURU].
It has the advantage that the lists are not really split, and the choice
is let to each one to choose if she wants to read or not the newbies or
guru messages.
I'm not sure it's really different from the standard two separate lists
though...

Yeah, and you add an extra step into the sending process, and I'm not
sure if that would really work (especially if there would have to be
another layer of redirection like the current gateways).

Even so, I'm not really sure "guru" is the right tag for it; I think
that most people just want the "Where is tehRuby compiler?" and
"What's the best Ruby book?" questions off the talk list, since there
is really not much useful talk involved. I think perhaps simply
maintaining the talk lists and providing a newbie list may be the best
solution (in my mind, at least).

Also, perhaps the Ruby lang site could offer a search box right there
on the mailing list page? This could be for people who have a
question that has already been answered won't be tempted to join the
list just to ask.

Which would be of no benefit for those who access the messages through Usenet. Also the FAQ is never seen by those on Usenet.

···

--Jeremy

On 12/19/06, Julien Gaugaz <gaugaz@l3s.de> wrote:

>>> This is why many times there will be "xxx-talk" (or "xxx-users") and
>>> "xxx-newbie" lists. I think perhaps Ruby has reached that "critical
>>> mass" point where this split is in order (even though i'm sure this
>>> has been discussed a number of times and decided against).
>>
>> I was on perl-beginners for years. When I came to the Ruby community
>> I asked for the equivalent, but many members felt it wasn't needed or
>> even desired. While I think I came around to their point of view
>> over time, I'm not sure it still holds.
>>
>
> In addition to the newbie/guru split, there is also the possibility of
> a core/user split. The core list would be for discussions relating to
> the current and future status of the Ruby language itself, the core
> libraries, and more theoretical questions. The user list would be for
> discussions about 3rd party libraries, installation problems, and
> IDEs. =)
>
> This split has the benefit of not making anyone feel like a newb,
> while still creating a separate area for hard core Rubyists to talk
> about serious issues without all the noise.
>
> Tom
I'm a newbie (to Ruby, and also to mailing lists somehow). What about
the following:
There would be two lists: one newbies, and one "guru". Each message sent
to one is also sent to the other, but with a tag: Like [NEWBIES] and [GURU].
It has the advantage that the lists are not really split, and the choice
is let to each one to choose if she wants to read or not the newbies or
guru messages.
I'm not sure it's really different from the standard two separate lists
though...

Julien

59

On further reflection, perhaps something at the gateway/server level
might be appropriate. Send a mail back that says something like,
"Check this FAQ, it may answer your question. If not, reply to this
e-mail with a blank body" or something. That way there's no
additional list traffic and it still gets the same thing accomplished.
OF course, you would really only want to do that if the algorithm was
pretty darn positive it knew the answer.

--Jeremy

···

On 12/23/06, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 23.12.2006 15:16, Trans wrote:
> Trans wrote:
>> Robert Dober wrote:

>> In a post script, Jeremy McAnally had written,
>>
>> "It would also be mildly entertaining to have an auto-answer FAQ bot
>> that parsed the language of a message and if it could decently figure
>> out what they're saying, post an answer pointing to a (currently
>> non-existent) Ruby FAQ..."
>>
>> I realize that automated replies don't have the niceties of human
>> interaction, but I think something like this could go a long way toward
>> improving list usage. Rather then automated answers just against a FAQ,
>> automate them against the mailing list itself via the archives. An
>> automated answer could then provide a list of links to related old
>> posts. Even as an experienced user I would find this kind of
>> representation helpful! Also, with these automated replies, experienced
>> users who are already setting up "weak" list filters, could create
>> stronger ones based on whether a new topic received an automated reply
>> or not, and what the automated reply concluded about it. (In fact I
>> imagine a Bayesian filter would be part of the bots implementation.) I
>> think it would be better for us to try something like this, and see how
>> it fairs, before taking the leap to two lists.
>>
>> What do others think? And also, is anyone up to the challenge?
>
> I'm curious. Did anyone recieve/read this? I'm surprised no one has
> replied to it, even if it's just to say "dumb idea".

I received and read it - but since I could not provide good feedback...
  It sounds like a good idea but I wonder how it will work in practice.
  This might not be a problem in a newsgroup but for a mailing list this
automated reply could easily trigger spam filters etc. Generally I have
a tendency against stuff that automatically increases traffic but it
still might well be worth a try. Dunno...

Regards

        robert

60

If it comes to splitting the list, I think this is way to do it.

Regards, Morton

···

On Dec 19, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Chris Carter wrote:

I don't think we should have a "beginners" list. A ruby-help and a
ruby-talk would be good. Ruby talk could have theory questions,
project announcements, and insightful discussions, ruby-help could be
the beginners list, and also general help questions.