View Full Version : The Q&A Forum.
Brandon Martus
09-05-2003, 20:52
Now that the season is long gone, I am wondering on what people thought of the Q&A Forum. Did it work? Did it kinda work? Did it cause too much confusion?
I'd like to hear the pros & cons of using it next year. What should change, what should not change, etc. We're looking for everybody's constructive criticism and new ideas.
During the build season the Q&A forum should be stuck on the homepage so it gets more attn. I found it useful. It mostly had answers to my questions before i had to ask, and when i did have to ask, there were answers immediatly. Do it again next year!
Gadget470
10-05-2003, 10:55
Automatic startup of discussion elsewhere.. I hated checking something from the portal, writing a 1/2 page response, all so that I could get the "You do not have permission to respond here" .. That was my biggest peeve of the forum.
The majority of the questions were also not using the Q & A Forum as it was intended. Asking questions to the public ("Where did you get containers from") or Asking opinions ("How should auto code be made"), etc.
I think more questions got answered, in a timely fashion also, in the general and technical forums.
Katie Reynolds
13-05-2003, 09:09
Originally posted by Gadget470
Automatic startup of discussion elsewhere.. I hated checking something from the portal, writing a 1/2 page response, all so that I could get the "You do not have permission to respond here" .. That was my biggest peeve of the forum.
Yeah, what Brandon said. I think that the Q/A forum should be open to everyone to answer questions, under the simple condition, "if you don't know the answer, don't post!" I mean, I understand why only certain people were to answer the posts in that forum but a lot of the time, other people knew the answer before one of the designated people could answer. I think by letting more people answer questions, it would cut down on the "extra discussion" about posts and help give answers quicker.
*throws her $0.02 in*
- Katie
While I do think allowing more people to respond would be a good thing, I don't thing granting that privilege to everyone would be the right solution. My 2c would be to have some kind of requirements system setup, like a certain number of posts, or registered some number of months ago, etc. That way, people get adjusted to the flow of the CD community before they can answer. Again, just my 2c.
Joe Matt
13-05-2003, 12:01
My main problem was the fact that I could answer a question or two that have not been answered yet, only to remember that I can't post.
David Kelly
13-05-2003, 13:14
Originally posted by Katie Reynolds
Yeah, what Brandon said. I think that the Q/A forum should be open to everyone to answer questions, under the simple condition, "if you don't know the answer, don't post!" I mean, I understand why only certain people were to answer the posts in that forum but a lot of the time, other people knew the answer before one of the designated people could answer. I think by letting more people answer questions, it would cut down on the "extra discussion" about posts and help give answers quicker.
*throws her $0.02 in*
- Katie
I'd had to disagree on this one. I think that only letting certain people answer the questions, it prevented the threads from getting offtopic and going into worthless disagreements. If it were to be open up to all people to answer the questions, how would it be any different than any of the other forums? It wouldnt allow for the "most correct" answers or advise to be given.
"if you don't know the answer, don't post!"
yes, i would like to see that happen, but do you really think that it will?
Joe Matt
13-05-2003, 13:43
A warning system will be imposed. 3 strikes and your banned for a month. 1 more and your done with.
A warning system will be imposed. 3 strikes and your banned for a month. 1 more and your done with. \
Meh. I saw something implemented like the Q and A forum a while back which was ran pretty well. Each person that signed up could either ask questions and answer them. Questions were divided up into seperate areas. If someone found an answer satifisfactory then they got a star or something(I forgot and the website is down). Something like this implemented.
Brandon Martus
13-05-2003, 15:01
There is something similar to what you are talking about on experts-exchange.com
People get to ask questions, experts answer, the person who asked grades the responses. I think the experts get points based on their grade, and can answer more/less because of this. Not positive exactly how it works, but it sounded familiar to what you were describing.
Ken Leung
13-05-2003, 15:06
Being one of the person came up with the idea of a Q&A forum, I've given a lot of thoughts about this through out the year.
Honestly, I think both side of the argument have good points.
If we let everyone answer in the Q&A forum:
Pro: Questions get answered as soon as possible.
Everyone get a chance to offer their help to people with questions.
Con: Threads could potentially get out of topic if some people doesn't treat it as seriously as others.
People can misdirect people with fake answer if they want to.
Rookie members might think they have the right answers when they are actually wrong.
If we only let selected people answer in the Q&A forum:
Pro: Questions are almost guaranteed to be correct.
The selected people will understand how important their responsibility is, and treat the forum seriously.
The threads won't get off topic as easily.
Con: People who aren't selected could have answers to the questions and couldn't answer it.
Generating the extra discussion make the question discussion very hard to keep track of.
So, I still don't know which way to go. Either we let everyone answer the questions, and have lots of moderators there to close the thread right away when there is a good answer, or we have selected group of people, only it is a very very large group of people.
Ideally I want to see the system setup so that everyone can post in the Q&A forum, but only the moderator's posts will show up, while all the others' are pending to be publicized when moderators approve them. Then we can make sure the thread stay short and clean, while everyone can contribute to it.
As far as having a qualification system for moderators... In the past we just pay attention to the forum closely, and figure out who have been really helpful in the past. We also listen to the selected moderators and see who they think should be added to the list. Just think, if every moderator suggest one different person, we will double the amount of moderators every time. I think the people know best when they spend endless amount of time in here reading through different threads.
Also, like a lot of people thinks, I really don't know the way the extra discussion turns out. It is very hard to keep track of the thread, because you never know if the responds are started in Q&A, or in extra discussion. If I have to choose, I would rather take out this feature and let everyone post rather than keep doing what we are doing right now.
...of course, I've written about this in the past. I'll spare everyone from reading it again unless they want to.
Q&A is completely useless. It's destructive, even.
Open it up to everyone and treat everyone like equals or get rid of it. Let people be responsible for their own actions instead of holding their hand and telling them how to behave.
Gadget470
13-05-2003, 15:41
Open it up to everyone and treat everyone like equals or get rid of it. Let people be responsible for their own actions instead of holding their hand and telling them how to behave.
M, We aren't equals. There are Freshman in High School to Career Engineers. You can't equate them on some aspects. Also, it's obvious that some people need their hand held. Which is why many threads get thrown off topic.
I think that anyone whom thinks they deserve to be allowed to answer questions in a Q & A forum should have some form of a testing procedure.
One of the most harmful parts of it was that it was implemented during season and "beta tested" with real necessary questions. Perhaps the current moderators (or sections of moderators) from the Q & A forum could get together and make up a quiz for potentials to take.
Sort of like 'testing out' of classes in college.. you 'test out' of normal status so you can moderate Q & A.
I feel this would generate a way for qualified (based on knowledge of questioned material) persons to assist those in need. Of course, there would have to be reprocussions for intentionally (or unintentionally but very..) misguiding answers or criticism.
Originally posted by Gadget470
M, We aren't equals. There are Freshman in High School to Career Engineers. You can't equate them on some aspects. Also, it's obvious that some people need their hand held. Which is why many threads get thrown off topic.
If you don't know the answer to a question, you don't answer it.
If you know the answer to a question, answer it.
I don't see how or why having a degree comes into play. We are all equals because we're all capable of learning and understanding the concepts that are used in designing a robot. Whether or not we decide to seek out that knowledge is another topic entirely.
Again, if you're 12 and can explain gear ratios or you're 35 and spent $100,000 on an education and can explain gear ratios. . . what difference is it? The question still gets answered.
Don't hold peoples' hands, treat them like equals. They'll learn how to behave sooner or later, and that's a lot more effective than telling them they're not old enough, or smart enough, or qualified enough to help other people. When you give people a bit of respect, and you make them feel like they're needed and wanted and useful, they'll amaze you.
I promise.
you gotta remember though, sometimes the simple answer is best. this year we had several elementary school kids, two sons of one of our mentors, in the work shop on an almost regular basis. granted, they're geniuses already (at ages 9 and 11), but i want to run everything we do next year by them, and if they don't understand it, it's too complicated.
same thing applies to the Q & A forum. Andy Baker might be a mechanical engineering wonder, but because of that he may see a problem one way, and give a very complicated solution. Some high school freshman we ask might look at the same problem, and give a super easy solution, because that's how they think. no offense meant to Andy Baker, but it's just the way the human mind develops, and i think that younger people can also provide useful, if not sometimes better, solutions, and for that reason alone, the Q & A forum isn't exactly the best it can be. i don't know how to change it to be perfect, but something obviously has to be done, because some people who know answers might never be able to help, because they've been denied the chance, which goes against everything FIRST stands for.
p.s. - don't hurt me, just my $.02 :p
Ken Leung
13-05-2003, 19:03
I think the best option to do right now is just open the forum for everyone to answer, and give the moderators the ability to close threads, maybe even the ability to delete post when they see something wrong with the answers.
CD is heading toward a direction of having more moderators from other teams anyway, so I think this is the right move. With enough moderators, you got enough people to check the answers and make sure it's good. Then we can even promote people to moderators base on how many good answers they provided in the Q&A forum.
Katie Reynolds
13-05-2003, 19:26
Originally posted by David Kelly
I'd had to disagree on this one. I think that only letting certain people answer the questions, it prevented the threads from getting offtopic and going into worthless disagreements. If it were to be open up to all people to answer the questions, how would it be any different than any of the other forums? It wouldnt allow for the "most correct" answers or advise to be given. Like I said, I understand why there were only certain people who were to answer questions. And I realize that allowing only some people to answer helps keep down the "clutter" in posts. But from a personal standpoint, it was frusterating when someone had a question and I knew the answer but couldn't respond. Sometimes it would take hours or even a day or two for one of the moderators to answer the questions. I'm not dissing the moderators at all, I think they did a wonderful job keeping up with answering questions but -- do you see where I'm coming from?
- Katie
David Kelly
13-05-2003, 20:31
Originally posted by Katie Reynolds
Like I said, I understand why there were only certain people who were to answer questions. And I realize that allowing only some people to answer helps keep down the "clutter" in posts. But from a personal standpoint, it was frusterating when someone had a question and I knew the answer but couldn't respond. Sometimes it would take hours or even a day or two for one of the moderators to answer the questions. I'm not dissing the moderators at all, I think they did a wonderful job keeping up with answering questions but -- do you see where I'm coming from?
- Katie
i know exactly what you mean. i stand at the point of people who "think" they know the correct answer and post an answer that is false. thats what we dont want to happen. expecially for the younger and rookie teams...
GregTheGreat
13-05-2003, 20:41
I dont think it was that great. The q and a on the first site was good. I think that it helped a lot of people.
Goos Luck To Everyone going to IRI.
Ryan Albright
13-05-2003, 22:14
you could have it that people such as mentors or people you know are worthy for there answers can answer cuase i was just discouraged on using it cause i couldnt reply to anythign so i just ahd the question answered somewhere else. Then i could get diffrent opinions and see diffretn ways to do it and even debate how to do it
I think it should stay open, and remain in the current form.
However, it needs a more dedicated moderator, who can "Tweak" all the questions into a better format. The questions all need to be clear, and concise, and their subjects need to be easily identifiable to aid searching. Also, questions should be screened, to prevent repeat questions, and to do some preliminary editing BEFORE the question is posted to the public.
The answers similarly need some moderation.
I like the concept of few moderators answering questions. All people are NOT created equal in this competition, and not everyone is smart enough to keep their mouth shut (even if they have nothing to say). In fact, some people post JUST to say "Wow, I have nothing to contribute!". (I wish I was kidding...)
Anyways... These are just my observations and opinions.
All in all, the QA forum seems as though it does SOME good, and that is reason enough to keep it around.
I think that with some heavy moderating, the forums will be useful. Another thing that might be nice is to come up with an FAQ about the game (maybe after the first few days or so--the moderators could compile common questions and post the accepted answers in one thread, and it would be stuck on top). Also, whenever someone asks a repeat, there should be a link posted to another thread with the answer, and then close the repeat thread. This way we don't get 10 replies and clutter up the forum. I think you should go ahead and put more moderators like you were planning, only instead of the moderators beeing the sole answerers, they will be incharge of heavily moderating the Q&A forum, so that it remains useful and relevant. With more Q&A moderators, problems can be addressed more quickly, and I doubt there will be much of a problem with opening up posting to all users. Besides, some people are complete ChiefDelphi addicts, and are on all the time, so they can at least be doing something productive if a few of them are moderators :D (not making fun of ChiefDelphi addicts, though ... I'm a card carrying member ;))
/me withdraws 2 cents
Stephen
Joe Matt
14-05-2003, 11:35
Here is my idea, have it open, but once it is answered by a mod or by another person CORRECTLY it will be locked so that excess discussion will be avoided.
GregTheGreat
14-05-2003, 12:11
Originally posted by JosephM
Here is my idea, have it open, but once it is answered by a mod or by another person CORRECTLY it will be locked so that excess discussion will be avoided.
I agree, think of how many times especially at the first website Q&A that the same question was asked 3,4,5 or 6 times. It makes it not only harder on the people answering the questions, it makes it harder on teams that are searching for answers to questions on the boards.
Good Luck To everyone at the invitationals
Originally posted by JosephM
Here is my idea, have it open, but once it is answered by a mod or by another person CORRECTLY it will be locked so that excess discussion will be avoided.
I don't understand what's bad about excessive discussion -- particularly when the question's already been answered.
Sometimes, I learn by talking things through (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=168197#post168197). Reading it isn't always good enough, and there are plenty of reference materials around that are better suited to that.
I'd rather not give more work to Brandon, but if the Q&A Forum is to remain, then I'd prefer to see a system in place that rewards people for helpful answers and discourages posts with no purpose, or that an enormously large number of moderators exist to review and approve replies from anyone. But then, if the moderators are online at that time and know enough to decide whether an answer is appropriate, they could very well be answering it themselves.
I'd rather see that everyone be given an opportunity to learn in the way that's easiest and best for them, and by limiting who can post to these forums seems like it's adding an extra obstacle to making an impact on someone.
Overall, I think the group of moderators did very well. The questions asked did eventually get answered, although some weren't as fast as I would have hoped. The extra discussion worked pretty well. It kept all the clutter to one area, while the Q&A Forum was clean.
I don't like the rating system idea though. If someone just doesn't like you then what's to keep them from giving you a bad rating 'just because'? Who's to say that their reason for giving you a bad rating is a valid one? People may not like your answers, but that doesn't mean they aren't correct.
Here's my idea. Leave the Q&A discussion open to everyone. If a post doesn't follow the rules, anyone can use the "Report this post to the moderator" link. If an administrator deems that post is against rules, it is deleted, and a strike placed against the poster. Three strikes and you're out.
Rules of the forum (grounds for deletion):
1. No "clutter" posts/answers. Posts that are so off-topic that they don't count.
2. "One line" responses. If you don't have an answer with adequate reasons to back up your repsonse, then don't post. As a rule, "Every answer should be followed by a paragraph of reasons." The exception is if you post a link to the rulebook, or another post on this forum, or a post on the FIRST Q&A forum.
3. Duplicate responses. If someone has already answered in the same way, then don't post. There's no need to post a link to rule "GM34" 17 times.
These rules would keep clutter to a minimum. People are forced to do some research of their own before they post an answer. If there isn't any information to back up what you said, then explain how you came to the conclusion/answer that you did. Use common sense. When you write a research paper, you just don't say "the yankees suck". You explain why you think they suck.
Originally posted by Jnadke
Here's my idea. Leave the Q&A discussion open to everyone, and have a set team of moderators with the ability to close threads and delete posts. If a post is deleted, the person who posted it gets a strike. Two or Three strikes, and you're out for good. Of course, each time a post is deleted it would be copied, and sent to an admin for validation.
Likewise, if someone doesn't like you, they could just as easily give you a strike. At some point, we're going to have trust the people who use this forum.
Again, if a moderator is present to delete a response they know is incorrect, they could be better using that time to write a correct response.
If they're not around to see that an answer is incorrect, the incorrect answer remains posted.
In either case, this system does nothing, necessarily, to decrease the response time for a given question. While there's a chance that the correct answer may get posted faster, there's conceivably an equal chance that an incorrect answer is posted. If you're relying on moderators to decide and give their stamp of approval, you may as well just wait on the moderator in the first place.
Originally posted by M. Krass
Likewise, if someone doesn't like you, they could just as easily give you a strike. At some point, we're going to have trust the people who use this forum.
Read the entire response please. I posted that, if a post is deleted, it would be sent to an administrator to prevent that from happening, if the administrator agrees, then the strike is issued. It's a lot easier for the admin to check over a few deleted posts than 20 ratings.
Originally posted by M. Krass
If they're not around to see that an answer is incorrect, the incorrect answer remains posted.
In either case, this system does nothing, necessarily, to decrease the response time for a given question. While there's a chance that the correct answer may get posted faster, there's conceivably an equal chance that an incorrect answer is posted. If you're relying on moderators to decide and give their stamp of approval, you may as well just wait on the moderator in the first place.
You're missing the point entirely.
I never said they were to delete incorrect answers. It doesn't matter if an answer is inccorect or correct, it stays there. Just as long as an answer is backed up with proof or reasoning, it's a valid point.
Laziness is the trouble maker on these forums. If people are forced to think about the answers they write before they post them, then they just might post the correct answer. If it isn't correct, oh well, if you have reasons why you thought it was correct, and wrote them out in your post, you're safe.
Originally posted by Jnadke
Read the entire response please. I posted that, if a post is deleted, it would be sent to an administrator to prevent that from happening, if the administrator agrees, then the strike is issued. It's a lot easier for the admin to check over a few deleted posts than 20 ratings.
I can't see the practicality in making the Q&A Forum a 12 step program to rehabilitate stupid people.
EDIT: Okay, fine.
What you're proposing adds several more layers of complexity to the operation of this forum that it just doesn't need. You're suggesting that anyone can answer, that "experts" oversee those answers, that an administrator double-check the "experts" to make sure they're behaving properly -- all under the guise of giving everyone a chance to answer.
Who needs all this red tape?
If you leave incorrect responses in the Q&A Forum, which was created with the intent or providing a quick & direct answer, without the off-topic discussion that may come about in regular threads (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15425), you're failing at the mission of the forum.
I don't agree with the mission of the forum. I say, "Caveat Emptor," so to speak. Just like everything in life, you get the good with the bad, and an enormous part of life is learning to decipher between the two. I can't understand why this should be or needs to be any different.
None of what you're suggesting does anything to ensure that a question receives a correct answer in a shorter period of time than it might given the current arrangement of the forum. From what I've seen, the largest complaint about the forum has been that many people can provide answers in a much faster timeframe than the norm.
So, what will it be? Do we maintain an elite class or do we take the risks of giving of everyone the opportunity to show what they're made of, for better or worse?
I vote the latter.
Originally posted by M. Krass
I can't see the practicality in making the Q&A Forum a 12 step program to rehabilitate stupid people.
If you're here to pick a fight, please don't. This thread is about cooperative discussion on how to fix the Q&A forum.
The entire point of my idea is to make people more self-aware. It's to eliminate the "one line" responses that have no thought whatsoever applied to them. If people are forced to think about what they've posted, we might just get a few correct responses.
Originally posted by M. Krass
What you're proposing adds several more layers of complexity to the operation of this forum that it just doesn't need. You're suggesting that anyone can answer, that "experts" oversee those answers, that an administrator double-check the "experts" to make sure they're behaving properly -- all under the guise of giving everyone a chance to answer.
Honestly, with this idea there really isn't a need for extra moderators. There already is a "report this post to a moderator" feature. If someone posts something without reasons as to why they think it's correct, they get reported. Brandon, Ken L, and David Kelly can make the decision pretty easily.
There are no incorrect answers. Every answer is correct, as long as it is backed up with valid reasons. Some answers may be more correct than others, when applied to the rules of FIRST.
Originally posted by M. Krass
None of what you're suggesting does anything to ensure that a question receives a correct answer in a shorter period of time than it might given the current arrangement of the forum. From what I've seen, the largest complaint about the forum has been that many people can provide answers in a much faster timeframe than the norm.
Actually, it is. My suggestion is to open up the forum to everyone, so they can post their response. The rules set in place are to "weed out" the poor responses that have no practicality whatsoever. Let me put it this way. Say you had a question and you spent 1/2 hour typing out a big long paragraph considering all the possibilities. How would you feel if all you got was an answer that said "No."? Pretty empty, huh? Probabaly feel cheated, like you deserve more than "No."
People don't learn if you just give them an answer. You have to tell them why it's correct.
Joe Matt
14-05-2003, 14:16
Not to but in, but if one answer is given by a non-mod in the Q&A section that helps a team tremendously then it's worth it. I know that many times questions can't wait for 40 mins untill a mod comes and puts up the answer. That's the idea here, not to reduce the role of the mods, but to speed up the process and bring in some creative people who either don't post enough to be considered or may be looked over.
Originally posted by Jnadke
Honestly, with this idea there really isn't a need for extra moderators. There already is a "report this post to a moderator" feature. If someone posts something without reasons as to why they think it's correct, they get reported. Brandon, Ken L, and David Kelly can make the decision pretty easily.
So, instead of making people who post here have to earn the respect of users by making meaningful, well-thought out posts on a consistent basis, you're suggesting, instead that we wipe their slate of uselessness clean any time they mess up in this forum.
There are no incorrect answers. Every answer is correct, as long as it is backed up with valid reasons. Some answers may be more correct than others, when applied to the rules of FIRST.
It's entirely possible to back up a wrong answer with a post of discertation. The answer is still wrong. While I agree that whoever posted the incorrect answer stands to learn from their mistake, it does nothing to help anyone seeking "a quick & direct answer."
It's a matter of ideology. If you'd like everyone to learn from the forums, it's imperative that we facilitate discussion from everyone so that they can be shown the errors in their thinking or logic. The Q&A Forum's purpose doesn't facilitate that sort of environment. The Q&A Forum exists for people who aren't interested in anyone learning anything. It's for people who are in a bind and need a fast answer to a problem they're facing at that moment. In the final hours of the build season, learning something becomes secondary to getting the project done -- at least, that's what the Q&A Forum leads me to believe.
I don't believe the Q&A Forum works within an ideology that supports everyone learning something above actually doing something successfully. I'm not at all suggesting that people shouldn't learn by what they post and what they read here. It just seems to me that the Q&A Forum was not created for that purpose, and if it's going to stick around, it needs to excel at what it was created for. Doing that steps on many toes.
Actually, it is. My suggestion is to open up the forum to everyone, so they can post their response. The rules set in place are to "weed out" the poor responses that have no practicality whatsoever. Let me put it this way. Say you had a question and you spent 1/2 hour typing out a big long paragraph considering all the possibilities. How would you feel if all you got was an answer that said "No."? Pretty empty, huh? Probabaly feel cheated, like you deserve more than "No."
It's also easier for me to read a response that says, "no," and discount it and its author than it is for me to pour through a 4 page reply that gives me an incorrect answer; particularly when I'm looking for an immediate solution to a problem. Furthermore, if I'm asking a question, it's likely that I'm doing so because I don't know the answer. So, if the first reply is an incorrect novel that sounds intelligent, it stands to reason that I could act on that response. How does that help the person who's asked the question?
People are capable of making intelligent-sounding arguments that suggest the earth is flat and that the world was created in 7 days. When someone is in a position that requires they get a correct answer quickly, making those intelligent-sounding arguments available to them is damaging.
Again, it's just a matter of ideology.
Andy Baker
14-05-2003, 14:56
Originally posted by M. Krass
I don't understand what's bad about excessive discussion -- particularly when the question's already been answered.
There are benefits and negative aspects of excessive discussion.
The benefits include more detailed explainations and we get to know each other better.
The negatives include making these forums even more cluttered than they are now and the fact that we users have to wade through discussion that is not needed.
People need to be concise. Many times, I don't have time to read long, drawn out posts. Sure, I have been guilty of this too... but this "added discussion" turns many people off.
Andy B.
Matt Reiland
14-05-2003, 14:58
I think that the forum as it was this year is fine, with the addition of more (qty.) knowledgeable mentors.
I do not agree with making the forum open to everyone to answer. Many posts on CD are incomplete or fully incorrect. The FIRST forum is just as bad if not worse for getting conflicting answers or gray area answers that don't give the definitive answer the user seeks. Each of my reply posts was researched this past year on the Q&A forum as were most of the others. Sometimes it takes longer than the 30 seconds some people want to make sure what is posted, is correct. The solution is to let knowledgeable people that want to be moderators, be moderators. To be a moderator know that you are expected to give the correct answer to the best of your ability.
Lastly, I wish everyone would take the extra 5 seconds to spell check and make even a minimal attempt to look like we passed 4th grade spelling. i.e. 'you' instead of 'u' etc.....
Originally posted by Andy Baker
There are benefits and negative aspects of excessive discussion.
The benefits include more detailed explainations and we get to know each other better.
The negatives include making these forums even more cluttered than they are now and the fact that we users have to wade through discussion that is not needed.
People need to be concise. Many times, I don't have time to read long, drawn out posts. Sure, I have been guilty of this too... but this "added discussion" turns many people off.
Andy B.
But, isn't it more beneficial and easier to provide more information and discussion than it is to leave it out entirely? It's somewhat easier for someone to skip a post because of its length than it is for someone else to go research the same content provided in that post.
I understand that these forums can be hard to keep up with at times, and as more people join in on the party, it'll probably just get worse. There's something to be said for being concise -- it's a skill we could all work on sometimes -- but, I'd rather see something verbose and useful than not at all.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Originally posted by Matt Reiland
Each of my reply posts was researched this past year on the Q&A forum as were most of the others. Sometimes it takes longer than the 30 seconds some people want to make sure what is posted, is correct. The solution is to let knowledgeable people that want to be moderators, be moderators. To be a moderator know that you are expected to give the correct answer to the best of your ability.
Exactly what I was trying to get at. I'm not trying to introduce "more clutter" into the forum, I'm trying to get people to research their responses. I researched all my responses before I posted. Even if it was something I thought I knew, I checked through the rulebook and found the answer before I posted.
Originally posted by M. Krass
When someone is in a position that requires they get a correct answer quickly, making those intelligent-sounding arguments available to them is damaging.
A point that re-enforces the argruement of "more moderators" and leaving the forum closed to everyone else. Even a rating system will take time to weed out the bad responses.
I do get where you are coming from though. You don't want only a select group of people to have their thoughts heard in the Q&A forum. My suggestion was a way to allow everyone to provide answers in the Q&A forum, while still keeping the answers clean by forcing them to back up their answers with rule book quotes.
Originally posted by M. Krass
But, isn't it more beneficial and easier to provide more information and discussion than it is to leave it out entirely? It's somewhat easier for someone to skip a post because of its length than it is for someone else to go research the same content provided in that post.
Isn't that the point of the "Extra Discussion" Forum, though? That is, don't clutter up the Q&A forum with a lot of extraneous discussion, but if you have something that you want to discuss, and is not of vital interest to the person who asked the question in the first place, it should take place in the extra discussion area.
Also, I'll take this time to describe in more detail something I said earlier. If there were a thread stuck at the top of the forum, where moderators could put common questions and concise, yet detailed, answers, I think that would solve a lot of problems. Moderators can reword the questions to be more general, or more grammatically correct, or more concise, etc. Then, they can provide a good answer, and it will be readily available to anyone even casually glancing at the forum. As people ask questions, if a moderator thinks it could come up again, he'll place the question (or a modified version of it) in this thread, and provide the answer as well. This, I think, would help stop clutter in the forum. Over time, if this thread got too bloated, it could be subdivided into many categories, or made into its own area (like the whitepaper area, but the FAQ area). For an example of such an FAQ area, check out this site (http://perlmonks.com/index.pl?node=Categorized%20Questions%20and%20Answ ers). But, I suppose I'm getting ahead of myself now. Before this post gets too long, I'll end it by saying thanks to all the moderators for the great job they did this past season on the Q&A forum.
Stephen
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.