Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Methods For Better Questions

by madbombX (Hermit)
on Dec 11, 2006 at 17:48 UTC ( [id://589100]=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

There was a time in all our careers (regardless of what they are) where we didn't know the proper way to ask a question. I know at the bottom of every page where it is possible to post a question that users have access to the tips listed at the bottom of this post (Just put there for reference as I know that most reading this post has read these before).

When a new or Anonymous Monk posts (and this is a broad generalization), there is a tendency to post with bad titles, lack of example data, or any number of other issues that make many monks cringe while reading a post. This isn't every Anonymous Monk or Initiate either. But that is where the potential for these mistakes is the highest.

My suggestion is as follows (although I am not quite sure about implementation methods within PM). If an Anonymous Monk posts a question (or any user for that matter posts their first question), they should be required to have viewed/read How do I compose an effective node title?, How do I post a question effectively?, I want to ask a question of the Perl Monks; where do I start?. Now I am not suggesting that there be a test at the bottom of the node or anything like that. I am also aware that people could handle it like EULAs and just click right through. There may be enough people that read it (who may not have otherwise) that it might make the overall quality of the nodes better. The goal isn't to make the site closed or anything, just a more comfortable place to look around.

I didn't find any previous discussions on this, so I decided to post my thoughts. I apologize if I missed any previous discussions. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Update: I also believe the same should go for Friars before they are allowed to consider a node. Friars should have to read:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Methods For Better Questions
by xdg (Monsignor) on Dec 11, 2006 at 20:15 UTC

    Rather than add obstructions, I'd rather add intelligence. Brainstorming:

    • On the preview page, flag one-word titles and suggest that they use a more descriptive title
    • For every post, either in preview or in the post itself, show the top Super-Search results on the title as keywords or automatically add a link to Super Search using the title as keywords
    • Add some format checking heuristics -- for example, flag single lines ending in semicolon with at least one perl keyword and remind about code tags

    Implementation is left as an exercise...

    -xdg

    Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.

      For every post, either in preview or in the post itself, show the top Super-Search results on the title as keywords or automatically add a link to Super Search using the title as keywords

      Neat idea, provided it's implemented in a not too obtrusive manner. (I.e. it shouldn't get in the way of those who intentionally use a certain title notwithstanding possible Super Search results.) Also, from the practical POV, I think it may impose too big a load on the server(s). In this sense a link to the relevant Super Search would be much better. Unfotunately it doesn't exist (yet). Although, to quote from that thread:

      The plan has always been to have Super Search give you a URL that you could copy to repeat a search that worked well -- you would use your browser's "copy link location" to get a URL suitable to put in a bookmark; select and copy the text displayed for the URL to get something suitable for pasting to use on PM ([href://...]).
Re: Methods For Better Questions
by shmem (Chancellor) on Dec 12, 2006 at 00:26 UTC
    I'm against required reads and accept/decline-like click-throughs. Sign posts won't prevent any boor from swashbuckling into our living room and yelling "what's time?". Behaviour of an individual towards a community is a social issue, and you can't solve social problems with technology. I'd rather link How (Not) To Ask A Question fifty more times than giving anybody the impression they're required to read and accept our "terms of trade".

    I'm in favour, though, of a prominent note e.g. on SoPW along the lines

    To ask for wisdom is wise, but it is unwise to ask without knowing how to. You will be redirected to How (Not) To Ask A Question if you show evidence that you didn't ask: I want to ask a question of the Perl Monks; where do I start? Knowing how to ask is required knowledge for Seekers Of Perl Wisdom.

    and I think it's more important to update the various textarea surroundings, for instance the preview page reads, below the preview/submit button

    and that's all as for advice. The Perlmonks FAQ shows up on the fourth screenful below the page top (on a 1024x768 display with a reasonable font size); that's too far away.

    --shmem

    _($_=" "x(1<<5)."?\n".q·/)Oo.  G°\        /
                                  /\_¯/(q    /
    ----------------------------  \__(m.====·.(_("always off the crowd"))."·
    ");sub _{s./.($e="'Itrs `mnsgdq Gdbj O`qkdq")=~y/"-y/#-z/;$e.e && print}
      Behaviour of an individual towards a community is a social issue, and you can't solve social problems with technology.

      Well, maybe not actually solve them. But when speaking of community and social behaviour it's obvious that communication plays an important role. And technology plays an important role there. For example, to quote an idea by xdg, a Super Search is only a few clicks away, but people are lazy, or just don't think of it. And a ready made link that is only one click away would probably help to overcome these inconveniences.

      I'd rather link How (Not) To Ask A Question fifty more times than giving anybody the impression they're required to read and accept our "terms of trade".

      I'm half hearted: I'm all against giving the impression that there are any "terms of trade", but to me a post that deserves being redirected to How (Not) To Ask A Question is nothing (or hardly anything) but noise, and two or three replies redirecting there end up being noise too. So I'm all for anything that could lower the noise/signal ratio. Then I don't know whether any of the proposed solutions would be effective in this sense...

Re: Methods For Better Questions
by lin0 (Curate) on Dec 11, 2006 at 19:21 UTC

    madbombX

    I think your suggestion for the Monks posting their first question is a very good idea. However, instead of requesting them to confirm having read "all" the nodes you suggested, I would ask them to confirm having read "only" I want to ask a question of the Perl Monks; where do I start?. Again, as you mentioned, they could just consider it as an EULA and click right through it. However, being only one node we are asking them to read, I guess that there is a better chance that they will read it. Moreover, if they are really interested in learning how to post effective questions, they can follow the links in I want to ask a question of the Perl Monks; where do I start?

    Cheers,

    lin0
Re: Methods For Better Questions
by davido (Cardinal) on Dec 12, 2006 at 06:01 UTC

    I am not in favor of requiring Anonymous Monk to jump through additional hoops to post. Anonymous Monk doesn't necessarily mean "Newbie Monk". It just means anonymous. The point is that, while a sizable portion of anonymous posters are new, a good portion of them are NOT new, and have already read your suggested titles.

    Plus, Anonymous Monk is anonymous, so any effort to require him to read something would mean tracking him. ...either track him with a cookie, or every time he posts make him read again. Sounds very annoying.

    On the other hand, regarding the required reading before monks can tinker with the consideration system, that's a reasonable proposal. It wouldn't bother me if we made people hit those pages every six months, in fact, if they wish to retain their moderator powers. Why not? I refer to each of the nodes you listed at least every 60 days, if not more frequently. Ok, I know why not; because someone has to implement it, and that takes additional work. ;)


    Dave

Re: Methods For Better Questions
by dimwit (Acolyte) on Dec 12, 2006 at 01:12 UTC
    The problem I see with your solution is whether you are going to require Anonymous Monks to read one or more nodes every time they want to post even if they have not been in error. And if you set up a mechanism to recognize when an Anonymous Monk has posted before, where's the anonymity?

    Not that it is a bad idea, per se, but you might have to give up true anonymity for those who wish it to secure better procedures and titles from some.

    xenchu the dim (ie. dimwit)

    Well, 'splain it to me!

      While this is true, I am not trying to take away their anonimity. I would just prefer that they be required to read it every time they post. If they would like to continue to post, then register. If they are already registered, then post as themselves. If we are truly a non-bashing community, then no one should be ashamed to ask for help.
        Anonymity seems to be a tradition on PerlMonks. Perhaps the question of whether PerlMonks wants to change that tradition should be discussed before discussing a change to posting procedure.

        Requiring anonmyous monks to read the node every time they posted just means they have to go to the node. How are you going to ensure that the node was read? It would be easy enough to scroll to the bottom of the node (or wherever) and hit the 'I read it' button without paying any attention to the information in the node at all.

        It is rather hard to force people to do things anonymously. They will cooperate or not but only if they want to. Forcing the issue brings us back to the question of whether to have anonymity at all.

        xenchu the dim (ie. dimwit)

        Well, 'splain it to me!

Re: Methods For Better Questions
by ambrus (Abbot) on Dec 12, 2006 at 09:19 UTC

    We have a moderation system that works. If you don't like badly composed questions, do not look at unapproved content. I don't think we need anything more than this.

      This is not to say that our moderation system couldn't be improved. It may be that frustration with poorly worded questions and titles is exacerbated by monks overly-ready to approve (and sometimes front-page) new posts. We might better achieve our aim of reducing unwanted clutter and improving the quality of posts by being a little more stingy with approval. If moderators were to defer approval until the node author has done the work of improving their title, fine-tuning their question, or referring to Super Search, we might find that authors would work to meet that higher standard.

      This seems to be a 2 angle process. Some would like to see properly formatted inquiries, while others say let live and let the system that works (Ain't broke) keep working.

      My experience was when I posted poorly, I got bashed, and bashed hard. To the point of being upset with the "aloofness" of the basher, and not wanting to come back. Yet the content and expertise available here (I kept getting directed to this place of knowledge no matter where else I went) has forced me to rewire my brain to work within the constrains suggested and it was for the better.

      I have been forced to ask better formatted questions, and better questions, overall.

      So I evolved into the system, and that actually helped me in how I approach my programming and research of the programming. (I'm pretty new at this) Hence, Thank you all. That is my humble perspective.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://589100]
Approved by Joost
Front-paged by Old_Gray_Bear
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others pondering the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-28 13:19 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found