Pet peeve with forums

[Bill Graham]

OK, here we go:

Why don't people who post a thread asking for advice about a manufacturer's tool of a given model number expect those who reply to either be intimately familiar with the model numbers of every tool produced by every manufacturer or spend time searching for it on Google?

If you want advice on a particular tool then post a link. It isn't that hard to do.

We want to help or we wouldn't be here. Spend the 30 seconds so it isn't hard to help you, you're the one asking for help after all.

Rant over.

[Matt Day]

I agree and disagree. it’s not asking too much for a poster to include a link or at least say what the specific machine is. But, many of us know a lot of the more common model numbers and if you don’t it’s really not that hard to do a 5 second google search.

[John K Jordan]

If the title or first line of a post asks for something concerning a brand/model number and I don't recognize I just skip to the next thread since I won't have anything to contribute.

I think it would help if the person asking for help or advice simply described things in detail. More people might respond if they didn't have to play 20 questions first!

JKJ

[Mike Trent]

I almost never post here, but check the site daily. Am amazed at how many folks ask questions before doing a simple search.

Google has made me look like a genius at my IT job — use it! And kudos to those of you who reply patiently “a simple google search reveals xxx...”

[Jim Becker]

While I generally agree that it's helpful when folks clarify some details about a tool they are asking about, many questions are about well-know tools that a reasonable percentage of community members know about. Unfortunately, it's a normal thing for many people to just forget that cryptic model numbers are not necessarily meaningful to others. If I see something I'm not familiar with, I just look it up...a copy/paste and a few clicks of the rodent takes care of it. It's just not worth being bothered by the omission.

[Pat Barry]

Often a question in a thread perks my interest to do a little research and look it up myself. Without the initial question I never would have done this. If everyone with qa question just went and googled it, forums like this would be diminished.

[Art Mann]

I think the more common problem with threads requesting tool information is advice from people who have ever used a machine and know nothing about it. They condemn based solely on brand or location of a manufacturing plant.

[Mike Cutler]

Links can get broken, and depending on the website can change quickly.
If they provide a link, great. If not, as long as the model info is complete, it's pretty easy to help.
I tend not to comment on tools I don't own personally.

One more reason, and I hate to say it, not everyone here is of an age where computers are second nature to them. I know it's just a simple copy and paste function, but I don't assume that everyone knows how to do it. I'm 58 myself, and watch guys my age at work struggle with all but the basic logon function and bring up their browser. A browser update can be a big hurdle for them. They're wizards with welders and milling machines, but not computers. ;)

[John K Jordan]

Often a question in a thread perks my interest to do a little research and look it up myself. Without the initial question I never would have done this. If everyone with a question just went and googled it, forums like this would be diminished.

Now that's an excellent point! When I have the time I learn a lot about things I'd never heard about. Of course, I'm not any help with that question.

It would be nice, however, if the poster added a telling key word such as "jointer" or "cyclone" after the "Need advice on XYZ model 4321".

Since this thread mentions "pet peeves" here's something which doesn't peeve me but in some cases might really help the poster - add their approximate location to their profile! If I see that a person who lives reasonably near me needs help with something or is looking for a special piece of wood or some repair I might just invite them to visit my shop or tell them about a place I know. I'm sure many others would too! Of course, someone hiding from [fill in blank] might prefer to not to. :)

JKJ

[Pat Barry]

My own pet peeve is that folks link in their photo attachments from something like Flickr or Photobucket, then later they remove those pictures or cancel their membership or whatever and then the thread is missing those sometimes critical photo's. I wish it was a SMC requirement that SMC must host all the images contained withing its own threads.

[Prashun Patel]

In fact, the people with knowledge about the machine and therefore advice to give may many times know the machine by its part number. If you had to look up a link to learn about the machine, what advice could be given?

[John K Jordan]

My own pet peeve is that folks link in their photo attachments from something like Flickr or Photobucket, then later they remove those pictures or cancel their membership or whatever and then the thread is missing those sometimes critical photo's. I wish it was a SMC requirement that SMC must host all the images contained withing its own threads.

Some people may link a photo so it will show up larger than a thumbnail. For example if I upload it with "Insert Image, From Computer" I see a thumbnail which is often perfect but requires a click to view larger:

371608

But occasionally a larger in-line image is useful. If I insert the same photo using a link I get this:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=363708&d=1499857735

Of course it is possible to do as I just did here, link to a photo previously uploaded to SMC, but it takes an extra step. And to be kind to the reader it may need to be sized reasonably before uploading which takes another extra step.

(Yikes, this makes me want to escape from my pressing lesson prep desk project and go down to the shop for a couple of hours!)

JKJ

[Yonak Hawkins]

I don't think this site allows posted links, for some reason I don't understand.

[Lee Schierer]

I don't think this site allows posted links, for some reason I don't understand.

Sure we do. Here is the TOS regarding links:
3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

[Yonak Hawkins]

I found the answer to a posters question. It happened to be on another forum. What's the problem with posting that link which does the service of answering a question ? This is a pet peeve of mine. Other forums allow this practice with pleasure as it increases everyone's knowledge base.

[Chris Parks]

I found the answer to a posters question. It happened to be on another forum. What's the problem with posting that link which does the service of answering a question ? This is a pet peeve of mine. Other forums allow this practice with pleasure as it increases everyone's knowledge base.

I agree with this whole heartedly 1000%. It is a real problem because some subjects are not discussed here at all and some knowledge resides in other fora believe it or not. This place is not the fount of all knowledge by a long shot despite what some may think.

[andrew whicker]

My pet peeve is any generic 'should I buy this?' Festool or Sawstop question.

[Scott Donley]

I found the answer to a posters question. It happened to be on another forum. What's the problem with posting that link which does the service of answering a question ? This is a pet peeve of mine. Other forums allow this practice with pleasure as it increases everyone's knowledge base.I think you will find it has to do with SMC not being able to moderate other forums. SMC has a high standard that not all forums have.

[Yonak Hawkins]

I think you will find it has to do with SMC not being able to moderate other forums ....

Who expects anyone to ? Everyone knows all forums are autonomous and one forum can't be responsible for the content of another. The practice only restricts access to knowledge for no defensible reason. I've heard this excuse before and it doesn't stand up to logic or common expectations.

[Keith Outten]

From our Terms of Sevice :

3. Profanity
Messages that contain explicit, vulgar, or obscene language will be removed or edited at the discretion of the Forum Moderators.


We probably have the largest number of children and others in our Community who are here because we don't allow salty language, flaming and other types of disrespectful behavior. Linking to another forum, even though a thread may start out suitable for our younger Members can go south real quick. Its not just the language its often unfriendly behavior from immature people who lack civilized communication skills.

I have addressed this topic a hundred times in detail, search my posts if you need more information.

[John K Jordan]

...We probably have the largest number of children and others in our Community who are here because we don't allow salty language, flaming and other types of disrespectful behavior. ...

I for one very much appreciate this policy. I've avoided certain forums because of unpleasantness - there is simply no need for it.

You may enjoy this: I was in communication with a gentleman about edge sharpness for turning tools and sent him a link to a sharpening thread here. After he read the messages here and poked around a bit he told me was amazed at how polite and respectful people were to each other, even when they disagreed. He said if I spent some time on some of the forums he frequents I'd see how the rest of the world operates. No thanks!

There are in fact some other respectable forums but allowing links to one and not others would be a nightmare.

JKJ

[Chris Parks]

Who expects anyone to ? Everyone knows all forums are autonomous and one forum can't be responsible for the content of another. The practice only restricts access to knowledge for no defensible reason. I've heard this excuse before and it doesn't stand up to logic or common expectations.

Keith, could you please address this and explain the reasoning behind it.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

From our Terms of Sevice :

3. Profanity
Messages that contain explicit, vulgar, or obscene language will be removed or edited at the discretion of the Forum Moderators.


We probably have the largest number of children and others in our Community who are here because we don't allow salty language, flaming and other types of disrespectful behavior. Linking to another forum, even though a thread may start out suitable for our younger Members can go south real quick. Its not just the language its often unfriendly behavior from immature people who lack civilized communication skills.

I have addressed this topic a hundred times in detail, search my posts if you need more information.


Keith, could you please address this and explain the reasoning behind it.

Chris, Keith did address that with his comment just 2 above yours.

[Mike Cutler]

Yonak

When this forum was begun, after Badger Pond closed down, Many of the people that were on Badger Pond came here. It was that group of folks that had a say in what type of forum this would be. Keith was not heavy handed,insisting on having it his way. He solicited input, and the body of people responded.
It has nothing to do with logic and common expectation. It has everything to do with respecting another persons opinion, and making them feel that no matter their level of ability, they are welcome and free to "ask the dumb question" without censure, and ridicule.

Chris

No site will be the end all site. Each site will develop it's own personality.There simply is no singular "fount of knowledge". I am absolutely certain that people on this site, are also on other sites. Some even use their same name.
I am curious as to an example of a subject hasn't been discussed here?


Oh, my pet peeve;
Statements of how "accurate" something is. It doesn't matter what it is.
If the device, widget, or machine, is not NIST traceable, there is no accuracy component.

[Frederick Skelly]

Mike's got the right of it.

From the first time I came here, I was impressed by the knowledge, kindness and politeness of people on SMC. As I was learning hand tools, people I was only recently acquainted with offerred to send me tools to try. (Steve Newman did this recently too. Bravo, Sir!) And I was immediately impressed by the Moderators here. They and Keith work hard to keep this place friendly and helpful. It was a big reason I started making a small contribution every year. My way of "voting with my wallet".

The rules and moderation policies seem to cause a big row about once a year. We've lost some darn good members, especially the last time. But I'll take this friendly site over the wild west sites (like lumberjocks) any time. I can live without links to other forums. YMMV.

Best wishes,
Fred

[Chris Parks]

Chris, Keith did address that with his comment just 2 above yours.

I still don't get it and think the reasoning is tenuous to say the least. Do you think that those who post here can't be trusted to link to sites that reflect the values of this one? I know I am talking to a brick wall as that is the only way that the policy can be defended and any extended conversation on this point has always been met with silence. You can't reason with a brick wall.

[Larry Frank]

I do not get the general complaining. Personally, I like this forum and how it is run. The rules are clear and maybe some do not care for them. Time to spend more effort on woodworking and less discussions about the rules.

[Jim Becker]

I agree with Larry that the rules here are pretty clearly stated--and will point out that everyone who joins is acknowledging their agreement to abide by them when they click the button to become a community member. The TOS isn't perfect for sure, but it's worked well to keep this a friendly place where all are welcome and should feel comfortable. I also help moderate two other forums (non-woodworking) where some of the things that we enjoy not having to deal with here run rampant and it makes those forums less pleasurable to participate in as a result.

And, of course, this digression about forum rules doesn't have much to do with the original premise in the OP. :)

[Chris Parks]

I am not generally complaining, I am questioning one specific aspect of the forum policy, nothing is perfect in this world and sometimes things can be changed for the better. I see no difference in the general behaviour of members here than anywhere else to tell the truth. I have never experienced or seen behaviour in other WW fora that would be termed offensive except for one very obscure forum which I don't think exists any longer.

[James Waldron]

I still don't get it and think the reasoning is tenuous to say the least. Do you think that those who post here can't be trusted to link to sites that reflect the values of this one? I know I am talking to a brick wall as that is the only way that the policy can be defended and any extended conversation on this point has always been met with silence. You can't reason with a brick wall.

Seems to me that Keith's post was quite well reasoned and not at all like a brick wall. It certainly hasn't been a case of silence. You, on the other hand, have offered only your discontent with the policy and an entirely unworkable alternate thesis that the admin should trust all the posters to the forum to self-police their actions. That seems a bit strained to me. The forum is moderated for very good reasons.

[Dave Lehnert]

I just renewed my annual contribution tonight (AKA Contributor) because I like how things are run here.

To the OP- It would be helpful if people would include more detail. Helps a lot to find info in doing a forum search.
A question like " Is the SS any good" to most, one would think they are talking about a Saw Stop but maybe it's ShopSmith??

Often you see post about people not using the forum search before asking a question, But it can be hard for a newbie to find info about Boiled Linseed Oil, for example, if all of us responds with BLO in our response.

[dennis thompson]

I do not get the general complaining. Personally, I like this forum and how it is run. The rules are clear and maybe some do not care for them. Time to spend more effort on woodworking and less discussions about the rules.

I couldn't agree more. I spend more time on this site than all others sites combined and never have had a problem, lets get back to making sawdust.:)

[Rollie Meyers]

When a machine model number is posted in the title, what type of machine it is should also be included, "Rockwell 37-220 Question" tells very little to a lot of people, "Rockwell 37-220 Jointer Question" removes all ambiguity about to what machine information is requested.

[Nick Decker]

When a machine model number is posted in the title, what type of machine it is should also be included, "Rockwell 37-220 Question" tells very little to a lot of people, "Rockwell 37-220 Jointer Question" removes all ambiguity about to what machine information is requested.

Exactly. If I don't know what a Rockwell XXX is, I have nothing to contribute to answering questions about it. But if the title says Rockwell XXX Jointer, I might very well participate in the thread simply because I'm trying to learn more about jointers generally.

It's a pet peeve of mine, too, and it'll probably get solved about the same time all my other pet peeves get solved. :)

Like most here, I've got experience with other forums and how they get moderated. This one suits me just fine.

[John K Jordan]

It's a pet peeve of mine, too, and it'll probably get solved about the same time all my other pet peeves get solved. :)


That made me laugh! I think I'll name the stray dog I just adopted "Peeve". Then I can smile when I talk about my pet Peeve.

371866

He's a great dog! He and my other dog Leo have a 1/4 acre fenced wooded lot to run in when they are not helping out around the farm.

JKJ

[Nick Decker]

Excellent! Kindly throw Peeve a stick for me. :)

[Matt Meiser]

Clearly there needs to be a checklist for all posts. Create a post verification team which triple checks that the checklist has been followed before allowing each post out of moderation. That will ensure no one wastes their time clicking threads they don't want to read or googling something to find out its not something they are actually interested in.

[Malcolm McLeod]

... Create a post verification team which triple checks that the checklist has been followed before allowing each post out of moderation.
...

Can I be on the post post-verification team? Someone's gotta re-check the post checker's checking of the checklist.
;)

[Matt Meiser]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXTYJkipAj0

[John K Jordan]

Clearly there needs to be a checklist for all posts. Create a post verification team which triple checks that the checklist has been followed before allowing each post out of moderation. That will ensure no one wastes their time clicking threads they don't want to read or googling something to find out its not something they are actually interested in.

Ha! For less manpower how about a filter on the user end: Show me all posts from [whitelist], omit all posts from[blacklist], omit posts that contain the word "help" unless they also contain the phrase "I googled", priority for these keywords [list], no posts that contain these [keywords], omit these sub-forums [list]. Eventually the personalized message stream would be down to a manageable 3 posts per week. :D

JKJ

[Rick Potter]

Getting back to the original post.

I would be happy if the 'new members' who ask a question, would give a simple thank you to those who spent the time trying to help them, before they disappear.

[Frederick Skelly]

Getting back to the original post.

I would be happy if the 'new members' who ask a question, would give a simple thank you to those who spent the time trying to help them, before they disappear.

+1. ......

[Dave Zellers]

Agree, but to be fair I was just able to help a first time poster with exactly what he needed and he was very appreciative and gracious. Always a fun experience.

[Joe Bradshaw]

I don't usually reply to these posts, but,I only go to three woodworking forums. I go to Wood Central, Woodnet forum and Sawmill Creek. I find all three to be very polite sites. Oh, I forgot the AAW site. I am quiet happy with Sawmill Creek.
Joe

[Curt Harms]

I found the answer to a posters question. It happened to be on another forum. What's the problem with posting that link which does the service of answering a question ? This is a pet peeve of mine. Other forums allow this practice with pleasure as it increases everyone's knowledge base.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. It's possible to direct someone to a particular piece of information without making it a clickable link. Is a clickable link more convenient? Sure, but it's not necessary. For instance, to direct someone to an Ebay listing, post the Ebay item number, "ebay item xxxxxxxxxxxxxx". That meets the no link requirement.

[James Waldron]

I don't usually reply to these posts, but,I only go to three woodworking forums. I go to Wood Central, Woodnet forum and Sawmill Creek. I find all three to be very polite sites. Oh, I forgot the AAW site. I am quiet happy with Sawmill Creek.
Joe


A quiet happy is no fun at all! :rolleyes:

[Simon MacGowen]

My pet peeve is related to lack of info., but more about lack of photos for complex questions. Why don't people include a photo or two, or a sketch with their complex questions. Often the first 4 or 5 responses to the OP's post are seeking details or clarifications.

Laziness is often the reason why someone does not Google to find the easy answers or take a photo and attach it.

Many of us want to help but do not want to do the share of homework that belongs to the OP.

Simon

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Often, it may the lack of technological skills that prevents someone from posting a photo rather than laziness.

[Prashun Patel]

I agree with (and simultaneously most times violate) this. To laziness and lack of technical skill, I will add 'embarrassment' as a third. I very often take pictures but end up not posting them because the lighting is horrible, or the picture is otherwise embarrassing. Stupid but true.

[Rick Potter]

I cannot say I am lacking in tech skills, I just don't have any. Any time I manage to post a picture, just figure my grand daughter had a hand in it. Links.....you gotta be kidding.

[James Waldron]

What makes me impatient is an OP who gets requests for more info and never responds. A failure to provide adequate info is a burden on the helpful, but a failure to respond to queries is just plain rude.

[Simon MacGowen]

I agree with (and simultaneously most times violate) this. To laziness and lack of technical skill, I will add 'embarrassment' as a third. I very often take pictures but end up not posting them because the lighting is horrible, or the picture is otherwise embarrassing. Stupid but true.

Prashun and Ken,

True that some posters don't accompany their complex questions with photos for technical reasons; I was not ruling that out. But my observation -- not necessarily in or restricted to this forum -- is that in many cases, that isn't the reason. Often, when the OP is asked to provide some photos, he or she quickly obliges, showing the point I made in my last post.

Simon

[Larry Frank]

Asking a technical question is more difficult than most people realize. The question or problem is clear in their mind but not clear to others. Taking the extra time to clearly ask a question and providing all the information is worthwhile in terms of getting helpful responses.

Typically someone will ask a question and the responses will be in the form of either guesses or requests for more info. The better the question is asked the better the responses.

Sometimes, people are frustrated with a problem and dash off a quick question but without providing good information.

Sometimes, I do not add a picture or link to a post because it seems to be too difficult when working on a tablet with a stylus. If I am on my desk top, it is much easier and all my pics are there.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

I still don't get it and think the reasoning is tenuous to say the least.

Although it has occasionally annoyed me that I could not post a link to the "perfect" answer on some other forum, I think that I understand the reasoning behind it.

So, just to clarify, do you really mean that you "do not understand the reasoning", or that you "disagree with the reasoning?" Language is tricky, and I think that the wording could mean either (in my mostly worthless opinion on this topic). My interpretation was that (1) they wanted a child safe environment, (2) they could not guarantee an external forum to have the same level of civility and lack of poor language, and (3) the primary concern was from forums and not other links (I have not had thoughts as to why).



Do you think that those who post here can't be trusted to link to sites that reflect the values of this one?

I could argue that we need no moderators if we trust all posts from members.

For certain the moderators will not be following links to verify that the links go to sites that meet guidelines and similar, and if the external site is not moderated, then in the future it might contain problematic content. I suppose I could argue this for any external link.


I know I am talking to a brick wall as that is the only way that the policy can be defended and any extended conversation on this point has always been met with silence.

I thought that they did post the reason for it above.

Oh, and Chris, I appreciate your thoughts... Especially since I had wondered the same thing in the past.

[Yonak Hawkins]

It seems the rules are not very clear. Posting links to other forums is not allowed because there may be something on those sites that may offend children but posting links to one's own personal website is allowed ? It seems to me the chance of a single woodworker's website being fraught is greater than that of an established forum. Where's the demarcation just so we know how to post what's allowable ?

[Jim Becker]

Yonak, links to non-commercial personal websites are permitted. Links to commercial websites are permitted unless the person linking has a financial benefit from posting the link. (no affiliate links, etc) We might make exception with the link is to something helpful, like a manual or procedure for obvious reasons. We do not permit direct links to other forums, auction sites, etc., as detailed in the TOS.

It's not a terrible idea for us to clarify things better in the TOS and perhaps that can be part of the re-jiggering when we move to the new forum software, but there is always going to be some level of subjective enforcement of this kind of thing due to its nature and due to how things change over time. When in doubt...ask a moderator or adminstrator...here or anywhere you may participate in an online community.

Jim
Forum Moderator

[Andrew Pitonyak]

It seems to me the chance of a single woodworker's website being fraught is greater than that of an established forum.

When you look at other forums, what is the context for the offensive posting? It is usually related to disagreements, something that you are less likely to have for something on your own personal site. Then again, if you choose to link to your own site, then you also have some level of control over what occurs there.



Where's the demarcation just so we know how to post what's allowable ?

I once made a post that was removed. I did not expect it, or I would not have posted it. The moderators were polite and specific as to why they removed it. My point is simply..... Do not post in fear. Post based on your understanding, and if it was not allowed, I expect that the moderators will be as polite to you as they were to me.

[Mel Fulks]

I think Andrew has described well. I had a post removed ,too. Would not have posted it if I had not thought it would be OK. Our best judgements don't always match. Part of the consistant civility here is the posts are considered and well self edited. The standard some other places tolerates typing that is faster than thinking.