From cgb at datanalytics.com  Sat Aug 21 14:17:25 2010
From: cgb at datanalytics.com (Carlos J. Gil Bellosta)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 14:17:25 +0200
Subject: [Rd] No RTFM?
In-Reply-To: <4C6F1A90.60609@onetel.net>
References: <4C6DC76B.7000303@structuremonitoring.com>
	<4C6F1A90.60609@onetel.net>
Message-ID: <4C6FC3D5.4070709@datanalytics.com>

Hello,

RTFM is a succinct and useful answer in many cases, yet somewhat 
impolite. A not much more verbose verbose version of it, possibly still 
more useful, and quite polite would be something like:

"Please, read rule #NN at http://www.r-project.org/posting-guide.html"

(asuming that paragraphs at the Posting Guide were numbered and number 
NN would point to the paragraph "Do your homework before posting"):

* It includes the word "please".
* It increases awareness of the Posting Guide
* It provides a direct link to it.
* The information under such paragraph is very informative and helpful.

One of the purposes of the different R help lists should be serving as a 
public relations platforms so as to promote the use of R.

Regards,

Carlos J. Gil Bellosta
http://www.datanalytics.com



On 08/21/2010 02:15 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> 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 Graves
>
> I'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
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
>



[Rd] No RTFM?
Carlos J. Gil Bellosta