A large bulk of users with 1 rep ask remedial vague and constantly reoccurring questions, many are not down voted and some are answered. aren't we enablers for laziness? it seems to be acceptable usage of SF. When things are documented better elsewhere and are easy to find - shouldn't we just tell them to RTFM and do our entire industry a favour?
4 Answers
If the questions are of a low quality, they should be downvoted and/or closed. You haven't linked to any of the questions you consider remedial, but I'm assuming that you mean ones that show little or no research effort and that are very basic. The very basic ones can be closed as off-topic with the following close reason:
Questions on Server Fault must be about managing information technology systems in a business environment. Home and end-user computing questions may be asked on Super User, and questions about development, testing and development tools may be asked on Stack Overflow.
If the question is not otherwise bad, and it's about Unix, you can vote to move it to Unix/Linux.
You can also vote to close with a custom reason, where you are free to write what you want. Here's an example:
This question is being voted for closure because the author does not show a level of technical understanding or appropriate due diligence in researching the topic that the community judges as being a minimum barrier to participate.
-
perhaps there's other issues at play, I can see from the related question that a version of this question was asked before - but it wan't matched when I created mine - same expression in the title 'RTFM' Commented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:14
-
Do you mean meta.serverfault.com/q/872/120438 ? That one is 6 years old; community standards change over time, so it's not necessarily a bad thing to bring this up again. But IMAO it's better to close the question with a good close reason than to just comment with RTFM.– Jenny DCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:17
-
1@Rob-d If you comment you better use a well wrote comment, as a simple "RTFM"'s comment can get into an argument easily, and get revenge downvoting, etc...– yagmoth555 ModCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32
-
-> i don't think they even stick around that long - but no, I would just throw it out there, it's kind of - shouldn't we make them be better admins Commented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:35
-
@Rob-d We should. Like this question: serverfault.com/q/694010/120438 - where I voted to close, and added a comment with information about where to find the relevant docs.– Jenny DCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:42
-
@Rob-d And here's an even better example: serverfault.com/q/665258/120438– Jenny DCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:43
-
@Jenny - what about this one just in - serverfault.com/questions/773835/why-ethernet-mtu-size-is-1500 Commented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:51
-
-
@Rob-d Really doesn't belong here. It might possibly be on-topic at Network Engineering, I'm not sure.– Jenny DCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:54
-
@Rob-d However, as I said, the thing to do is to downvote, and if you can post a comment that's not too snarky (a feat that is often beyond me...), do that. If it's egregiously bad, flag it.– Jenny DCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 12:59
-
-
4@Rob-d Better yet, just don't bother at all. If they can't be bothered to RTFM, commenting isn't going to do any good. As Jenny answered, just throw on a downvote and/or close vote and move on.
shouldn't we make them be better adminsNot for free, and not for lazy, jerkoff help-vampires, no. It's not what they want anyway, they just want the codez/someone else to do their job for them. By downvoting and close voting, you get them to a question ban quicker, which means less dealing with their particular crap. Commented Apr 29, 2016 at 18:54 -
Last quote definitely should be in list of close reasons. Commented May 12, 2016 at 7:51
It's generally not acceptable to say things to the effect of:
RTFM and GTFO
It's rather hostile. I know these people annoy us, and it feels good to chase them out with vigor. But the severed heads on the battlements are not any kind of deterrent, and it makes for a hostile environment.
Sometimes they just need to know that it is documented somewhere, and where to find it. Link to it; if copyright allows, post an excerpt, and if not, post a summary of whats to be found. As my tech-writer friends are fond of lamenting:
You can lead a technician to documentation, but you can't make them read it.
They need incentive. Making it worth their while to go to all the bother of reading pages of indirectly-related material to synthesize their actual answer. Patience is very lacking among all of us, old-timers and new-kids alike. It's part of the job, as there is never enough time to figure it out and also read everything.
And if that doesn't work, the close reason of, 'insufficient understanding' is appropriate. That's the closest we have for an RTFM and GTFO answer.
answered Apr 29, 2016 at 13:07
-
1thanks, I'll STFU and bite my tongue for the most part - else-wise I become a Google service. I commented on one or two questions with the 'let me google that for you' link - which is a cheeky way of saying RTFM - but I'll cease and desist with that. Commented Apr 29, 2016 at 13:17
-
1IIRC "let me google that for you" links are/were blocked, but maybe that block is only on answers and not for comments. anyway, sometimes I notice that the problem people describe is more than sufficiently documented, but if only you already know the correct jargon/technical term. Please don't hesitate to point that out. This Q&A is only one such example although I would have left a comment rather than an answer.– HBruijn ModCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 13:23
-
@HBruijn The block has gone away. I'm looking into why, and get it back.– sysadmin1138 ModCommented Apr 29, 2016 at 13:26
-
Agree with the middle ground. As systems get more complex, there will often be cases where one is required to deal with something new. That said, documentation is often poor and difficult to use. Helping someone (even someone who may not appear to have done enough homework) while also pointing to the correct documentation not only solves the immediate problem, but also helps that person and others who follow to better use that documentation.– ColtCommented May 12, 2016 at 2:13
A short RTFM answer is constructive, if you give a hint at the correct manual. It's very constructive, if you mention the relevant section. The user may have tried to read the manual and did not know in which section he should search for the answer or he may not know that there's more than the sparse readme.txt.
If you answer "read the official docs", you could have not answered at all, as you do not contribute anything. The user either has thought of reading the docs before, or he wasn't asking constructively himself.
And some short example may be way more helpful than a pointer to a too complicated section in the official docs. See the new stackoverflow documentation site, which tries to solve exactly this problem.
It's all fun and games until a forum thread telling the OP to RTFM/Just Google It is the top result on Google for that problem. Since the Stack Exchange Network exists in large part to try and prevent this, I plead to please don't ever let it become what it set out to displace. Either close the question so it doesn't show up on Google, or post the relevant excerpts from TFM. Even better, explain it. Getting dismissive RTFM replies is frustrating when you're legitimately just a new person who did RTFM and it's either not making sense or not working as expected.
-
1
-
4and I'm referring to how people think they have a better parasite detector than they do– AnnaCommented May 3, 2016 at 20:15
-
6We're quite good at spotting parasites, thank you very much. Since you're new here, I'll remind you to take the tour and learn that our site is targeted toward professional operators. It is not targeted toward developers, enthusiasts or random people who want their PCs fixed or want the basics of some technology explained to them.– Michael Hampton ModCommented May 3, 2016 at 23:20
-
4mike if you took 1 second to look at my profile you'd realize this isn't my first day on the stack exchange network, so pardon me if it's plainly obvious that maybe you're on the unfortunate end of the dunning-kreuger curve regarding your "parasite detector" abilities. I'm also not the scapegoat for whatever windmill-dragons you imagine are threatening the glorious hallowed halls of the stack you moderate (yes, I can read profiles!) I'm just a casual user trying to contribute with what I have. Relax.You'll never get anything done if you attack people who are trying to help solve your problems.– AnnaCommented May 3, 2016 at 23:31
-
8I did look at your profile. You've been here all of two days. Your time elsewhere on the network only means you probably understand the underlying software; it does not mean you know what is acceptable or unacceptable here. None of this qualifies you to come in and begin insulting people. You will cease doing so immediately.– Michael Hampton ModCommented May 4, 2016 at 8:02
-
7Anna. Close to 80% of the people who ask questions on Server Fault have an account with more reputation on another SE site. This suggests that close to 80% of the people asking questions know how the system works. Knowing how the system works does not obviate the need for people to read the tour - reading the site name 'Server Fault' misleads people into thinking that they can ask any IT related question here and that is incorrect.– user9517Commented May 4, 2016 at 10:48
-
6Right now I don't really think you understand the problem you are trying to help solve. The best way for you to help solve the problem is to go and answer some questions on the main site so that you can get a better understanding of what the problem is - wear a man's shoes and all that. I look forward to seeing your contributions.– user9517Commented May 4, 2016 at 10:48
-
The problem I'm trying to solve is forgetting why this entire site network exists in the first place.– AnnaCommented May 4, 2016 at 14:58
-
1Sometimes telling people to read the documentation is the only answer.– user9517Commented May 5, 2016 at 5:56
-
2and yet in that example they still gave the answer, which is incredibly helpful for someone who might be googling that error message trying to read the manual in the first place. no matter how big of an idiot you think that or any asker is, the response there should remain the bare minimum standard for stack exchange. server administration comes with a bit of a god/superiority complex, but its also sometimes a lot of thankless shovel work and someone taking a minute to give a straightforward answer might just make some harried admin who just forgot the -6 flag was a thing's day– AnnaCommented May 6, 2016 at 15:59
-
It would have taken the OP less time to read the documentation and gain (most of) the information in the answer than it did to ask the question in the first place only to be told to read the documentation... I also note with a tinge of sadness that you seem not to have upvoted an apparently useful answer but hey no one is perfect at playing the SE game.– user9517Commented May 7, 2016 at 6:08
-
2See, the trouble I have with people not reading docs and asking crappy questions of the internet in general is that you are creating a dependence on others rather than educating people to be self sufficient. If the only thing you can do is 'ask the internet' then the day your internet is not there you're screwed.– user9517Commented May 7, 2016 at 6:18
-
I'm a bit curious, what prompted you to come answer this question?– ReacesCommented May 8, 2016 at 19:14
-
Serverfault should not be expected to provide Reading Manuals as a Service.or similar.