in reply to RFC - How to ask...

Thanks for contributing this (of course). I'll just quickly address what I consider the most critical points:

Don't bury the lead. Keep it short. Don't require scanning.


If you want to get good answers:

Paste between <code> and </code> tags actual code that reproduces the problem and state exactly what the problem is and exactly what the correct behavior / desired output is. Additional background about what you are trying to do and why along with other things you have tried also helps.

For example:

<code> use strict; use warnings; ... </code> gives me the error <code> ... </code> I'm trying to ... <p> I also tried ...

If you don't have code (link)... If you don't get an error message (link)... If your code is too large (link)... If ...


I'll also try to find a good, short example to replace the "..."s with.

Rather than require scanning, include internal links so the reader can jump directly to the appropriate section.

If you have to apologize via "This is a little long" or "scattershot points", then you are writing to the wrong audience. Just fix such problems so no apologies are necessary.

Thanks again.

- tye        

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC - How to prod newbies
by ww (Archbishop) on Feb 14, 2009 at 21:49 UTC
    YESSS!   Thank you!

    Your node could be a stand-alone faqlet. Or it could be the lede -- a replacement for the first graf -- while retaining additional detail/explanatory material for those who would actually read on.

    I'm inclined to the second of those, but that may be misplaced pride of authorship, which was not mine alone when first circulated, and clearly isn't mine alone, now.

      Yes, since it wasn't clear, the "(link)"s were meant to represent internal links to subsequent sections or bullet points in the node (though any lengthy material should be separated out to different faqlet).

      - tye