Copyright © 1990-2005 by Prof. Timo Salmi
Last modified Sat 5-Nov-2005 19:35:05
|
|
Copyright © 1990-2005 by Prof. Timo Salmi Last modified Sat 5-Nov-2005 19:35:05 |
|
Since I make several, partly automated FAQ and other information
and advice postings on the Usenet news, this issue rises from time
to time. In general, there is a huge number of regular FAQ and
similar postings on the Usenet news. Some readers welcome them, some
don't. Hence, whenever I can, I try to make mine easy to avoid. I
keep the subject header information of my FAQ postings constant for
the easier, automatic avoidance. Several newsreader programs have kill file properties which
can readily be used to avoid the automated regular postings. It is
best to learn to live with the situation.
The particular issue which rises most often from the serious users is the users' different preferences about the FAQ posting frequency. Whichever one follows (e.g. bi-weekly, weekly, bi-monthly, monthly, semi-annual, annual, never) there are so many users on the Usenet news that there always are users who would like things differently. An additional catch is that the actual need of regular information postings in a newsgroup can fluctuate even widely over time depending on what currently happens to be going on in the newsgroup. Furthermore, the frequency is a non-issue. If one wants to avoid a regular posting, one only has to set up the filtering once irrespective of the FAQ posting frequency.
A parallel, occasional issue is displeasure at my posting advice on e.g. points such as "where to put test postings", "about posting binaries to discussion newsgroups" and "tips about quoting". One demand is that I take the advice to email . The reasons why I post are the following. First, it unfortunately is very common (sometimes for understandable reasons) on the Usenet that the poster's address is not valid. Second, my purpose is to try to help by the advice, but to chide anyone. This is a point that some users single-mindedly fail to see. One should not automatically assume a flame-oriented frame of mind. Third, others on the newsgroup might benefit from the tips. Not everyone is antagonistic about the posted advice. Fourth, posted advice can be corrected by the other knowledgeable readers should there happen to be some errors in the information.
On rare occasions my FAQ postings have been ignorantly compared with spam, i.e. (unsolicited and/or misplaced) commercial postings or outright scam. This is ridiculous. The goals of spam and my FAQ postings are entirely different. Spam tries to exploit you at your own cost. FAQs are meant to help by providing information and advice. They do not involve financial agendas. Furthermore, FAQs and FAQ postings and pointers have a long tradition on the Usenet news.
I am fortunate enough to have gained a reasonable amount of experience on the Usenet news, in fact practically from its outset back in the late 1980's. Based on that experience, what I usually do with the complaints about my FAQ postings is this:
I have often posted or emailed a pointer to the answer by
referring to my Frequently Asked Questions and other collections or
programs, rather than the actual, full answer to the questions posed
on the Usenet news. There are several reasons for this conduct,
which some users don't quite like.First, I feel that it is better to help people to learn how to find the answers, than simply feed them. (I'm supposed to be a professor underneath, am I not? :-). In the long run such know-how is much more beneficial for the users. (Recall the proverb about teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish). Also this method has a curbing effect of the same repeated questions ballooning and filling a newsgroup.
Second, the pointed information is often much better and more accurate what one can provide on the fly. It is much easier and thus more efficient to give a pointer rather than to try to remember, for example, the exact name and/or location of a utility that a user asks for.
Third, although being very busy most of the time, I can usually afford the few moments it takes to write a pointer, but I simply cannot repeatedly afford the time to look for the same full answer, and then write it. It's hopefully better to give some information than none at all. Ask yourself which is better. A pointer or no answer. Of course, there must be a sensible balance between pointers to answers and giving the full answers.
Fourth, I get by email many such questions or requests which, while still welcome, are not fair in the sense that answering them would take an inordinate amount of effort from my part. A few examples of such requests. A typical one is that I should manually uuencode some package and email it to the user. My standard response is to send the prerecorded Garbo instructions (/pc/link/pd2ans.txt which also is included in /pc/link/tsfaqn.zip). Believe it or not, some users see it fit to complain about getting the full prerecorded Garbo instructions from me as a reply to their emailed Garbo related standard questions. They seem to think that I should devote my time to an individualized service carefully editing for them exactly the information they need. Another excessive one is asking me to see on the requester's behalf what a package's documentation says, or to test and then describe a particular package for him/her individually so that the requester would not have to take the trouble of downloading it to see for him/herself. There are also many other similar instances where I must refer the emailer to post the questions to the Usenet news, to refer him/her to other general sources of information, or refer him/her to a person to whose domain the question belongs. I am sometimes surprised (and why not flattered) of the kind of knowledge the users imagine I have. You really wouldn't believe some of the requests I get, starting from asking me to send information about hotels in Finland to foreign students' enrollment pleas, and even about matters I have never even heard of in my life like locating some obscure German health products.
Fifth, don't let my FAQ referrals deter you from posting your own answers. They are definitely not meant to discourage anyone else posting one's own answers. As an aside it is interesting to note that more than once I have encountered posters who recriminate giving the FAQ reference and pointedly show off with how to answer the question in full. They might do it a few times, but after a while they tend to quit answering at all. So much for their initial bravado.
Sixth, some users are upset about my posting my answers instead of emailing them. The drift from the above should be clear. I can't repeatedly afford the luxury of giving individual guidance. If I have a pointer I post it at one go, since from experience we know that the same subjects keep repeating, and the overall effect can still be the hankered reduction of traffic!
Of course there is a problem to the pointer or FAQ method which I often use as an answer to questions posed on the Usenet news. Someone else may have a much better answer than I do. If s/he doesn't post it because of the pointer I've made to the FAQ, good answers are foregone by the users.
For some more on this subject please see the following items in
tspost17.zip
"Reducing comp.lang.pascal traffic"
"Re: A kill file example"
tspost14.zip
"Advantages and disadvantages of FAQ referrals"
"Re: what is bandwidth?"
and
tspost08.zip
"Re: "Wasted" Bandwidth"
If someone's legitimate postings are bothering you, also see my further killfile links .
I try to help when I can, but with the amount of email I get one has to be realistic . Therefore, I
very often have to respond to users with prerecorded messages, FAQ
referrals and/or refer their questions to the Usenet news. Please do
not be put off if and when I have to give you this kind of a
response.
