What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" policy to the R mailing
lists? Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM":
The Ubuntu Forums and LinuxQuestions.org, for instance, have instituted
"no RTFM" policies to promote a welcoming atmosphere.[8][9].
RTFM [and] "Go look on google" are two inappropriate responses to a
question. If you don't know the answer or don't wish to help, please say
nothing instead of brushing off someone's question. Politely showing
someone how you searched or obtained the answer to a question is
acceptable, even encouraged.
...
If you wish to remind a user to use search tools or other resources when
they have asked a question you feel is basic or common, please be very
polite. Any replies for help that contain language disrespectful towards
the user asking the question, i.e. "STFU" or "RTFM" are
unacceptable and
will not be tolerated. ?Ubuntu Forums
Gavin Simpson and I recently provided examples answering a question from
"r.ookie" that had previously elicited responses, ""You want
us to read
the help page to you?" and "It yet again appears that you are asking
us
to read the help pages for you."
I can appreciate the sentiment in fortunes('rtfm'). In this case,
however, "r.ookie" had RTFM (and said so), but evidently the manual
was
not sufficiently clear.
Best Wishes,
Spencer Graves
Recently I was visiting with people about why commercial support is needed for some people using R. One person observed: With commercial support, you have a person that you can call with questions and yell at. With R mailing lists, you can ask questions and have people yell at YOU. The atmosphere of the R-help and R-devel mailing lists is infamous. Is this a good reputation to have? I'm doubtful that it is. So, I support Spencer's suggestion for more civility. Kevin Wright On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Spencer Graves < spencer.graves@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:> What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" policy to the R mailing lists? > Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM": > > > The Ubuntu Forums and LinuxQuestions.org, for instance, have instituted "no > RTFM" policies to promote a welcoming atmosphere.[8][9]. > > RTFM [and] "Go look on google" are two inappropriate responses to a > question. If you don't know the answer or don't wish to help, please say > nothing instead of brushing off someone's question. Politely showing someone > how you searched or obtained the answer to a question is acceptable, even > encouraged. > ... > > If you wish to remind a user to use search tools or other resources when > they have asked a question you feel is basic or common, please be very > polite. Any replies for help that contain language disrespectful towards the > user asking the question, i.e. "STFU" or "RTFM" are unacceptable and will > not be tolerated. —Ubuntu Forums > > > Gavin Simpson and I recently provided examples answering a question from > "r.ookie" that had previously elicited responses, ""You want us to read the > help page to you?" and "It yet again appears that you are asking us to read > the help pages for you." > > > I can appreciate the sentiment in fortunes('rtfm'). In this case, however, > "r.ookie" had RTFM (and said so), but evidently the manual was not > sufficiently clear. > > > Best Wishes, > Spencer Graves > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel >-- Kevin Wright [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com> wrote:> ?What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" policy to the R mailing lists? > Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM": >I think this is a great suggestion. I notice the R mailing list already has a gesture in this direction: "Rudeness and ad hominem comments are not acceptable. Brevity is OK." But the people who behave badly don't care about policies like this and they will keep doing what they do. pj -- Paul E. Johnson Professor, Political Science 1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504 University of Kansas
On 08/20/10 01:08 AM, Spencer Graves wrote:> What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" policy to the R mailing > lists? Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM": > > > The Ubuntu Forums and LinuxQuestions.org, for instance, have instituted > "no RTFM" policies to promote a welcoming atmosphere.[8][9]. > > RTFM [and] "Go look on google" are two inappropriate responses to a > question. If you don't know the answer or don't wish to help, please say > nothing instead of brushing off someone's question. Politely showing > someone how you searched or obtained the answer to a question is > acceptable, even encouraged. > ... > > If you wish to remind a user to use search tools or other resources when > they have asked a question you feel is basic or common, please be very > polite. Any replies for help that contain language disrespectful towards > the user asking the question, i.e. "STFU" or "RTFM" are unacceptable and > will not be tolerated. ?Ubuntu Forums > > > Gavin Simpson and I recently provided examples answering a question from > "r.ookie" that had previously elicited responses, ""You want us to read > the help page to you?" and "It yet again appears that you are asking us > to read the help pages for you." > > > I can appreciate the sentiment in fortunes('rtfm'). In this case, > however, "r.ookie" had RTFM (and said so), but evidently the manual was > not sufficiently clear. > > > Best Wishes, > Spencer GravesI've personally found the R community somewhat unhelpful at times. In fact, of all the resources I use: * Newsgroups like comp.unix.shell, sci.math.symbolic, comp.unix.aix, comp.unix.solaris * Mailing lists for autoconf, automake, gcc, sage maths, ecl, time-nuts. * Forums for OpenSolaris I've found the r-devel about the least helpful of the lot. My most recent example was when I created a bug report about a version of R that was about 4 months old. The bug was that the configure test failed to detect the version of libicu was unsuitable on Solaris. (Since it was the version of the library shipped with Solaris, I would personally have thought the configure script should detect its too old if it is). When submitting the bug, I selected the particular R version from the pull-down menu, as it was listed. Then I got some snotty reply about reading the FAQ and not submitting bug reports for old versions of R. At the time I submitted it, I suspect the version I had was about 4 months old. Ask on a Solaris mailing list about a 5 year old version of Solaris and you will get civil replies. Likewise, the gcc lists don't expect everyone to be running very recent versions. I would have like to have responded on the technical content of the message, as I believe the autoconf test is flawed if it can't detect that a version of a library installed by Sun is unsuitable. But I decided that such responses were best ignored. There's quite a bit in the R manual about Solaris that is just plain wrong, but although I've reported some of the problems, these were ignored, so I can't even be bothered to report the rest. I must admit, I do sometimes give people links to http://justfuckinggoogleit.com/ when I think they are being particularly dumb in not using Google, so I do appreciate it can get annoying when people ask questions they should be able to get answered themselves. But it seems to me that arrogance is more normal on r-devel than on other lists I use. Thankfully, I don't have to use r-devel much. Flames to /dev/null. Dave
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Hadley Wickham <hadley at rice.edu> wrote:>> Regarding length, the portion at the end of every r-help message (but >> this does not appear at the end of r-devel messages or the messages >> of other lists concerning R): >> >> ? "provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code." >> >> It was intended to provide a one line synopsis of the key part of the posting >> guide that could be readily pointed to. ?Although we have to be careful about >> making that too verbose, as well, it might not be too onerous to add > > But no one reads email footers... >I would expect that a lot more people read that than the posting guide. Its also useful as something to point to that is more accessible than the posting guide since its right there. One can be sure its been received since every message contains it. Finally it gives the key info that someone needs to effectively use r-help.
On 22-Aug-10 23:29:39, Paul Johnson wrote:> Dude: > What's so objectionable about filling in the output of >>systemInfo() > ?? > What particular piece is too onerous to ask of people who > are asking questions? > -- > Paul E. Johnson > Professor, Political Science > 1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504 > University of Kansas(with Cc: to r-devel) I presume you mean "sessionInfo()". "systemInfo()" hasn't been mentioned so far, I think. [1] It may or may not be relevant to the query. If it's relevant, then it's fine. If not. it's a waste of space. The current Posting Guide already advises it under "Surprising behavior and bugs:", where such advice is appropriate. It is not appropriate for (e.g.) a query asking for advice about packages for multiple imputation. [2] I am not objecting to it as such. I am questioning your proposal that 1. Every question to r-help should begin with the following. A. Output from the command sessionInfo() B. Output from Sys.getlocale() [etc.] Not *every* question, as I've said before. It depends on the case. [3] I have tried to argue for a moderate and flexible spirit in what is advised in the Posting Guide. I am very uncomfortable about proposals as prescriptive and rigid as yours seem to be. Users, especially beginners, are likely to be discouraged from posting to R-help if faced with stringent (and possibly not relevant) requirements on how they should post. If faced with responses which chastise them for not "following the rules" they may well be put off using R altogether. As I have said before, I see the function of R-help as helping, in as cooperative a way as possible. The function of the Posting Guide should likewise be to help them to write good questions, with advice on what mey be necessary, what useful, what not useful. The current Posting Guide is already quite reasonable in these respects, and perhaps would benefit most from being made being somewhat re-formatted, without essential change. Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at manchester.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 23-Aug-10 Time: 03:22:01 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
At 01:08 20/08/2010, Spencer Graves wrote:> What do you think about adding a "No RTFM" > policy to the R mailing lists? Per, "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTFM":Spencer, You raise an interesting point but the responses to your post remind us that people (and indeed whole cultures) are not all situated at the same point on the continuum of directness between "It's a cow, stupid" and "From this side it looks not unlike a cow". The issue of what is offensive is even more complex, I remember being taken to task on another list for referring to a "rule of thumb". The thing I find most rude on the list is not the occasional abrupt postings by people who are obviously having a bad day but the number of fairly long exchanges which end unresolved as the OP never bothers to post a conclusion and we never know whether we solved his/her problem. I am not asking for thanks but we would all benefit from knowing how it all turned out.>The Ubuntu Forums and LinuxQuestions.org, for >instance, have instituted "no RTFM" policies to >promote a welcoming atmosphere.[8][9]. > >RTFM [and] "Go look on google" are two >inappropriate responses to a question. If you >don't know the answer or don't wish to help, >please say nothing instead of brushing off >someone's question. Politely showing someone how >you searched or obtained the answer to a >question is acceptable, even encouraged. >... > >If you wish to remind a user to use search tools >or other resources when they have asked a >question you feel is basic or common, please be >very polite. Any replies for help that contain >language disrespectful towards the user asking >the question, i.e. "STFU" or "RTFM" are >unacceptable and will not be tolerated. ?Ubuntu Forums > > >Gavin Simpson and I recently provided examples >answering a question from "r.ookie" that had >previously elicited responses, ""You want us to >read the help page to you?" and "It yet again >appears that you are asking us to read the help pages for you." > > >I can appreciate the sentiment in >fortunes('rtfm'). In this case, however, >"r.ookie" had RTFM (and said so), but evidently >the manual was not sufficiently clear. > > >Best Wishes, >Spencer Graves > >Michael Dewey http://www.aghmed.fsnet.co.uk