Skip to main content
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
Source Link

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help centerhelp center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposalwritten a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Source Link

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposalwritten a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Every now and then I read these Meta-Posts about that whe should be nicer to new users, and we should guide each one of them until they understand how the system works.

You know what? I completely disagree with these suggestions.

I never had the problem that my first questions were not "good" enough, that they were downvoted or closed very fast. The help center (formarly known as FAQ) is very clear about how asking a question works, and you just need to view some questions to see which are acceptable and which are not.

It's not that hard. Once someone has written a question, s/he just has to read it once again and check:

  • Is the question clear?
  • Does it include example code?
  • Did I show my research effort?

That's it. As easy as that.

If someone did not read the rules, and therefore wrote a question that will be put "On hold" (not even closed!) - why should we manually explain the rules to that user?

By the way, I have written a proposal some time ago with an idea how to "force" new users more to really show research effort.

Source Link
Uooo
  • 1.2k
  • 7
  • 15
Loading