Don't Ask Us Questions. We'll Just Ignore You

One of the funniest things on the internet, for my money, is Eric S. Raymond's epic FAQ, How To Ask Questions The Smart Way.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original blog entry at: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/06/dont-ask-us-questions-well-just-ignore-you.html

From Buck: “Open Source has never been about gaining acceptance from the masses.”

I find this statement to be patently silly in today’s day and age. It strikes me as rationalization of rude behaviour. I won’t deny that perhaps most open source aren’t suitable for use by the masses, but the idea of open source certainly doesn’t preclude it.

“…but I have a low tolerance level for people who comment on Open Source as if it were another commercial enterprise. Perhaps if most Open Source developers were actually making money off their creations, they would be as you would like them to be.”

I have low tolerance for people who are just rude toward others, and I suspect Jeff does as well. It has nothing to do with making money; it’s about common human decency.

“If we know the intended audience will probably never see it, who exactly was How To Ask Questions The Right Way written for?”

The same audience that ALL of Eric S Raymonds papers are written for.

Eric S. Raymond

I believe it’s pretty presumptuous to believe any self respecting newby would want to ask a question of snotty, self serving, assholes like you.
Do the world a favor and crawl back under your rock where you can feel self important w/out disturbing those who truly are…

It was, I think, intended for the newcomer: the
person who wants to do the right thing but is unfamiliar with the “rough and tumble” of usenet culture. It is, however, rather abrupt. I didn’t want to point people at it for that reason, so I tried to reframe the problem more in terms of how to get the best out of tech support rather than in terms of how not to annoy them. I wrote this:

http://www.eng.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~hgs/support.html

(which I think my initals should link to if I’ve filled in this form correctly). Mine is more specific to my locality than that document. If its wording is useful, feel free to use the contents elsewhere. I’d like acknowledgment, but the important thing is to reduce the grief all round :slight_smile:

Quiz time! Who said this:

“… the most valuable gift you can give your users is the luxury of ignorance — software that works so well, and is so discoverable to even novice users, that they don’t have to read documentation or spend time and mental effort to learn about it.”

You’re right! It’s Eric S. Raymond!

(http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/luxury-part-deux.html)

Somehow this seems appropriate, but I can’t quite see how. :slight_smile:

Actually, it occurs to me that I usually do exactly what Eric Steven Raymond suggests:

  • Try to find an answer by searching the Web.
  • Try to find an answer by reading the manual.
  • Try to find an answer by reading a FAQ.
    […]

… and I find that (1) and (3) are very useful precisely because other people have already asked the dumb questions. I very frequently find anwers on forums where other people asked the same question I have. So the DIY culture of hackers, who might resolve some knotty problem by heroic effort on their own, does me no good. Hmmm.

It’s like class at school – you might as well raise your hand and ask the dumb question, because probably half the kids in the class have the same question …

The same audience that ALL of Eric S Raymonds papers are written for. Eric S. Raymond.

I LOL-ed.

“… the most valuable gift you can give your users is the luxury of ignorance — software that works so well, and is so discoverable to even novice users, that they don’t have to read documentation or spend time and mental effort to learn about it.” – Eric S. Raymond

I think that’s the kindler, gentler, newer Eric S. Raymond, as it was written in 2004 (compared to the 2001 date on the HTAQTSW). I wrote up a little blog entry on this back in 2004:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000018.html

I have low tolerance for people who are just rude toward others

I don’t have a problem with rudeness per se; it’s the weird, cultural institutionalization of rudeness embodied in that FAQ/rant that I object to.

Is it “cool” to be annoyed when someone asks you a basic question?

I, unapologetically, hate that gun-toting, libertarian, obnoxious, snob and zealot called Eric S. Raymond.

Am I the only one who finds “A Newby”'s(sic) post to be defining of the characters the paper was directed at?

I take the opposite position. I think it’s a great document. I agree that its not nice to be rude to a newbie asking a question because he or she has no idea where to look, but there are two different scenarios which qualify for a link to HTAQTSW.

First, we have the Help Vampire. This is a person who asks not one question but thirty. And they ask questions like “So what would happen if I enter this value instead?” (Answer: TRY IT AND FIND OUT) repeatedly. There are some people in this world who refuse to think or to do any legwork whatsoever to solve their own problems. They are the same people that post to newsgroups saying Help I need to know how to do X. And I need to know before tomorrow. Email me right away with the answer.

A second point is that most people in Linux/Unix circles that get pointed to that document should know better. These are usually not people unpacking their first PC from Best Buy - these are hackers (in the good sense of the word). To ask people a bunch of questions without using Google first is an affront to the hacker culture. This community places high value on inquisitiveness, resourcefullness, and self-reliance. That said, I’ve generally found them to be helpful. Check out #ubuntu on freenode and watch the same questions being repeated. You’ll see no harsh replies usually a kind pointer to the FAQ or the Guide and a kind word like “Read that and if you still have trouble, let us know.” There’s nothing wrong with encouraging people to think for themselves. Teach a man to fish and all that.

As for your last question, I doubt any truly new user may wind up reading Eric’s FAQ but it is invaluable for somebody who is starting expand their use of open source software and want to get regular help on the software they want to use.

Also Eric FAQ is typically dead on the money. Because unlike commercial software, open source software is written based on the interests of the developer and mostly on their spare time.

For example I write and maintain an open source simulation of the Project Mercury and Project Gemini space capsule. I written a lot of support documentation that walks a first time user through a mission and helps them learn the system.

Luckily I haven’t really encountered a clueless users. But I have gotten a fair amount of newcomer emails over the years. If the answer is simple then I tell them, but mostly I tell them how the documentation is laid out, where to find them, and what order to read them.

This is different then when I do support for the software company work where we always walk the customer through the problem and make sure it is resolved before we hang up.

It is a time issues, I simply can’t give the support for my open source project as I do for the commerical work I done. And people who refuse or can’t read the documentation supplied well… maybe my simulation isn’t for them.

Not to say my documentation is perfect. I have fixed problems in the past. But I likely to get into a lengthly conversation when it is obvious the person has tried to master my simulation and it just not working out.

I know other developer that made similar add-ons to mine and they are not so friendly. But again their add-on was done in their space time.

Eric’s FAQ describe how it is. Now how he wishes to be or how it should be but how most of the thousands of open source developers work and how best to deal with them to get what YOU want.

I don’t have a problem with rudeness per se

I do.

This is a person who asks not one question but thirty […]

These are familiar characters in all forums (literally, haha), including classrooms. They are, however, not necessarily representative of newbies per se. Being rude to everyone who asks an “obvious” or “dumb” question is to visit the sins of some upon all. You can try to educate the occasional Help Vampire, and if it comes to that, mod them out.

I’ve answered a lot of forum questions in my day, including many of the same ones over and over, and including some for people who are ungrateful jerks. Even so, I go with the presumption that every question is genuine and well meant until I know different.

What’s so hard about learning the differnece between this?

Does it take longer to xref the person to an answer than it does to humiliate them?

Everyone knows who it was written for: Eric S. Raymond and his pals. It’s a rant disguised as a “document.”

Now, I’m not going to say that it wasn’t caused by real world experiences, or that this doesn’t happen every single day, but it’s true that the people that he thinks would most benefit from this will never, ever see it.

I think the FAQ was written primarily as a rant, and I don’t mean that in a negative sense. ESR was frustrated by the stupid behavior he observed in the wild, and needed to get it all off his chest. So he wrote HTAQTSW.

Has anyone ever heard a newbie say, “I just saw this great thing about how to ask questions,” and link to
HTAQTSW? No. The links are all from knowledgable experts who are tired of the newbies. It was written by a frustrated expert, and has since been appreciated by frustrated experts.

Karl Fogel’s book on running an open source project makes specific mention with dealing with newbie questions.

He takes the high road and points out that just because you’ve heard the question asked 1000 times, it is the first time that this particular person asks the question. So try to be nice and helpful. Point to the FAQ if it exists. Etc…

It is a timewaster, but it builds goodwill more than it tears it down.

I always thought it was clear that it was a rant (as others have pointed out). It is a rant that doubles as advice for those who actually care: an example of how to “participate” in the open source environment without appearing to be out of the loop.

I wonder why people are so concerned about open source gaining adoption, especially with the rank and file user. The true open source goal was to scratch an itch and share it with others who might have the same itch and be able to contribute as well. The Genesis of open source was during a time when the only people using it were technological geeks who could read source.

Now some projects have expanded the goals to a “commercial sheen” and broad acceptance. Some have even succeeded in bringing that to the user (Firefox for example). It isn’t a goal that many open source projects aspire to though: many simply have an itch, scratch it and share it to the technical community. Then they get beaten up for not hand holding the noobs.

Does it take longer to xref the person to an answer than it does to humiliate them?

Yes, but which is more fun? And more importantly, which option makes ME feel more important? :wink:

I really don’t see the problem with what Raymond wrote, because I understand the context from which it’s written. It doesn’t appear that you do, Jeff. Open Source has never been about gaining acceptance from the masses. It’s always been about creating something to solve a particular problem or do something cool, and sharing it with others who have the same problem or for them get some enjoyment out of it.

Sorry if you feel I’m “ranting”, but I have a low tolerance level for people who comment on Open Source as if it were another commercial enterprise. Perhaps if most Open Source developers were actually making money off their creations, they would be as you would like them to be. You can’t have it both ways, Jeff.

“It sometimes looks like we’re reflexively rude to newbies and the ignorant.”

I don’t know who “we” is, but I can tell you that I:

  1. Am much more forgiving of newbies who don’t know any better than I am of the jackasses who flood lists and forums with stupid flames of said newbies, when they do know better.

  2. Have seen said “reflexively rude” almost exclusively from posers and hangers-on, not from the serious developers. (No doubt there are exceptions, no need to list them.)