Timeline for RTFM inappropriate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2010 at 8:40 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Chris, that's really the key - the question has to at least look like the poster has shown some level of professionalism and made an attempt to look for the answer. If it's clearly spelled out in the docs they should have seen it. | |
| Oct 21, 2010 at 0:17 | comment | added | Chris S | +1, If the question really deserves a "RTFM" then I wouldn't down vote an answer that includes it; I'd probably upvote it. If the question is decently written and reflects some general level of effort, then the "RTFM" is not appropriate. | |
| Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 | comment | added | John Gardeniers | @Kyle, 1) I believe it is equally important for anyone seeing the question in the future to understand that they have a duty to read the manual as well, giving value to an RTFM answer. Of course that's just my opinion and I accept that it's not shared by all. 2) If the question interests me I might research it but generally I don't. 3) I do, or I might vote to close it. | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 21:01 | comment | added | Kyle Brandt | Three Thoughts to consider: 1) Forget about the OP -- If you answer the question itself then it might be useful to others in the future. 2) I don't think you should take the time if you don't want to. SF should be fun, and if you don't want to bother to answer a particular question that is fine. Only answer the ones you will have fun answering. 3) If you think it is just a crappy question (i.e. simple and poorly written), you can always downvote if you feel it deserves it. | |
| Oct 13, 2010 at 20:43 | history | answered | John Gardeniers | CC BY-SA 2.5 |