Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/02/12/11:16:21
Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote in article
<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980212115711 DOT 19556C-100000 AT is>...
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Robb Beggs wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there should be another newsgroup: comp.os.msdos.djgpp.newbie.
>
> This has come up before; you might consider searching the DJGPP
> archives at http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/. The
> conclusion was that it wasn't a good idea after all. In a nutshell,
> newbies most benefit from messages posted by experienced users, so it
> doesn't make sense to banish them.
I'll start looking in there right away
> > It could be an environment for us beginners to feel free to ask a
> > few obvious and frequent questions, yes even questions whose answers
> > are in the docs, readme and faq. Responses could be posted by those
> > who know, or think they know.
>
> I don't see any point in a discussion where previous knowledge is not
> used. If some issues has been beaten to death before, why should
> anybody want to forget about that and reinvent the wheel? IMHO, a
> news group can only have a good signal-to-noise ratio if it preserves
> previous knowledge and makes a point of using it before discussing it
> again. c.o.m.d is known as a group where the noise level is
> relatively low. I'm sure most of those who read it will want to keep
> it that way. Having random replies which relate random knowledge is
> bound to contradict this.
>
> It is good net etiquette to read the available docs before asking
> questions, since you get help for free. Nevertheless, please note
> that opposition to asking FAQs is quite low on this group. Usually,
> these questions are answered with a direct pointer to a specific
> section in the docs which discusses the related matters. So I don't
> think people are afraid of ``asking a few obvious and frequent
> questions.''
>
> > Of course, newbie or documented questions will still appear in this
> > newsgroup, but they would likely be less frequent.
>
> You seem to assume that asking these questions annoys the heck out of
> us. This is not so. It is actually the other way around: those
> questions *are* answered, mostly in a polite and concise form; but
> doing so takes time from those who reply to these questions, and they
> have less time to help those whose questions are non-trivial.
>
Sorry to quote so much, but is seemed to cover the right topics. As a
lnguistics major, I get to review many things relating to language. A
fairly hot topic is the use of the internet as a communication device.
(primarily the web, then usenet) Papers I have read present the theory
that there is a high intimidation value to enter conversation for a newbie.
Why? Because usenet (to the newbie) appears to be full of self rghteous
bastards who enjoy answering people, but in a way that is rather rude.
Though this may not be the fact, it is the perception. And before you
defend your particular newsgroup, realize that that is irrelevant. Usenet
is viewed as one big body.
as far as the comment that I assume that answering newbie questions annoys
you, well, the comment that started some of this was someone commenting
that they were getting sick of the nature of some of the questions.
Now, I'm wondering if I should even post this, 'cuz its likely a topic
thats been beaten to death. Oh well :)
Be true
- Raw text -