Possible Duplicate:
Ban lmgtfy (let me google that for you) links

In this Q I asked a valid question why the answer used a specific technique and not another. I knew the answer to this but wanted to see if others noticed it too. (The Q happens to be in a subjective tone, therefor allowing two completely different, yet valid answers!)

No one noticed this subjectiveness, though. Instead, I received a non-answer that's in the title of this Q. At moments like this, I'd love to downvote comments but can't.

I don't want to bother about the Q itself, but am I right when I consider such comments to be extremely rude?

  • 1
    Some reading: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/15650/…
    – random
    Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 8:36
  • Voted to reopen. This is not an exact duplicate. Although all the answers may be mostly the same, the question is different. LMGTFY is a patronizing snarky and rude unacceptable way of saying that they should use google. This question is about whether suggesting google is appropriate at all. Even though the answer is the same (no in both cases) the questions are different.
    – devinb
    Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 12:22
  • If the answers are the same, then it's an effective duplicate. Would vote to close if re-opened.
    – Shog9
    Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 19:44

3 Answers 3


No, not really. The idea of SOFU is to become a big repository of information regarding a single topic (programming, sysadmin etc), just like an encyclopaedia. Although everyone knows what paper is, there is still an entry for it in the Encyclopaedias.


I agree with joshhunt wholeheartedly. There are many good answer on meta if you search for lmgtfy. Now - with a little irony - is this a polite answer to your question: just search meta? I will add some links for you to make it more valuable:

I would encourage answering - maybe in a summary style - and add a valid Google search together with links found to detail your answer. Remember that Google will find corresponding SO questions and answers really! fast and they will show up at the top of the list very soon - which will make your answer a recursive game of self reference.

What will be a value add is to list search words that the user could use but did not know about - give him a repository or a glossary of neighboring or professional expressions and concepts.

  1. You're making a scene.
  2. I hope EXISTS stops after the first find, while IN doesn't. I don't know.
  3. Commenting isn't the medium for question and answers.
  4. That said, I also ask question on comments when I don't get something. It's a good way to learn.
  5. You can flag the comment (say, as noise - it adds nothing). It will be removed if others do the same.
  6. Sometimes you can answer a question I don't know correctly and get accepted using a simple Google search. When this is the case, I think it's good to mention that. That is - not STFW, but a link to a relevant result, maybe a quote, and then maybe the google search.
  • I'm not discussing the Q but the comment, which I just consider rude. Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 9:54
  • @Kobi: I'm assuming you posted the comment in question. Thanks for sharing your point of view, but most of your points are off-topic for this question. Point 6 would seem to indicate that you agree "Google and find out" is not a useful comment, but noise. A useful comment would do as you suggest: Provide the information first, then mention the search that revealed that information second. That's in line with the consensus. Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 12:17
  • @Adam - Not me. It seems the two involved were arguing all over that page. 6 is the only point that isn't relevant, the discussion was in comments on the accepted answer, not as an answer. The comment said simply "@Alex: Google and find out", but it's gone now after I've flagged it (fifth?).
    – Kobi
    Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 13:14
  • There was an argument because the Q turned out to be subjective. (As I explained in my second answer.) This made me wonder because the way I understood the Q, the accepted answer would be plain wrong! Of course, someone else could have explained about the confusion before I did that. But the remark, which is gone now, was just plain rude. (And even wrong.) Commented Sep 15, 2009 at 15:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .