How should we deal with RTFM comments?

Question

I encountered this question, which contains an RTFM comment in response to a user's question-comment about the answer.

I believe that in SO there should not be RTFM answers, as was already established, but my question is about RTFM comments.

When I see RTFM I find it offensive to the question asker, that may be a complete newbie, and SO also needs to serve complete newbies well. If you think the asker should RTFM, it's okay to just ignore or politely direct him/her at the documentation without the F attitude. That's not to say some users don't deserve it, and there may be claims that "it depends on the exact scenario", but I'm asking about the general spirit of the site.

So - are RTFM comments okay? Not okay? Is it reasonable to flag them?

Answer 1

I would flag it as requiring moderator attention if it's a post, or just flag it if it's a comment (as there aren't different options there). There are definitely better ways of drawing people's attention to the manual.

Answer 2

"RTFM" is rude, no doubt about it. However, links to the manual in comments are perfectly acceptable, and sometimes the only appropriate response to a question.

So when posting a manual link, be smart. Drop the RTFM and use nicer wording so the link survives. Suggestions:

• Check out the manual page: (link)
• See the manual: (link)
• This is explained in the manual: (link)

If the OP was really lazy:

• Your question is answered in the manual: (link) For future reference, please always remember to look in the manual first. Thanks!

If you encounter a RTFM link, and it's useful (because it contains a link to the correct manual entry), ask the comment's author to word it a bit more nicely first. Remember: Offensive-flagging just makes it go away, which is a shame if it's a useful link.

Answer 3

RTFM comments generally useless

If everybody read the fine manual, most of the questions asked on the internet would go away!

Answer 4

Not everyone knows where the manual is.

A polite comment or answer saying where to look is appropriate, as long as the answer linked is clear and obvious. If not, then more explanation will be required anyway. In that case, a real answer should be posted, linking to the manual, and explaining what the manual meant.

It has always amazed me how many people simply don't seem to know about The MSDN Library. It's a great resource, and I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Answer 5

Let's be frank here. "RTFM" -- even without a link to the specific manual & section -- has a place when the original question demonstrates a total lack of effort to find the answer through normal means. While one should be polite to newbies who are still trying to find their "posteriors", it's pretty hard to tolerate repeated posts by folks who would rather ask a question on SO than look in the obvious (and readily accessible) reference sources.

This pretty much parallels the "What have you tried?" response, though RTFM refers to lack of research while "What have you tried?" refers more to lack of thought.

Answer 6

Since we all know what the "F" in RTFM stands for, I'd say this falls under this rule.

As GMan comments on Jon's answer, it's okay to point at the manual, especially when you point to the relevant section (which, FWIW, is what the commenter did). But clearly, the wording was way off. As we say in Germany: The music is in the tone.

Also, a link to the relevant part of an online manual is always a good addition to the question itself, especially if—as in this case—the commenter is the answerer himself.

---

On the side: I just flagged the comment in question, and appearently that was the last missing flag; the comment is gone now. FYI, it just read

RTFM: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/sorting-rows.html

(and had one upvote).

Answer 7

𝙍ecursive 𝙏hread, about 𝙁ormation 𝙈ethods

"Read The Fine/F*#@* Manual" is a very old acronym used by first BOFH which made the very first base of what all of us use now.

Looking at very old newsgroups, you may find a lot of threads like this 2003's discussion: Why there isn't an ISO: a very bad state of mind where a little irritation is readable...

There is a nice post in 2005: Why newbies don't RTFM... with a different meaning.

And finaly as a reference, one of the very first documentation servers, simply named: ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/

Nota: on Wikipedia, the story tells us that the first apparition was in 1979.

Is to be cool a requirement?

Hurting a newbie may send them to such an intellectual process where he wants to try to understand why these people I don't know had a so aggressive answer against my simple question.

Like little kids in a park who try to understand methods to discuss, share and play with others kids. Some kids are really horrible, but trying to banish them is not acceptable. Other kids have to learn how to live with (and in this case, some of this other kids learn a lot about social exceptions).

Are badly written posts useless?!

Things have to be done by normal evolution. On a world-connected exchange platform, there are a lot of people with different sensibilities and attitudes. Trying to banish people because of their speaking attitude may not be the solution at all.

(Mozart, for example, had a poor social reputation, as many other geniuses. But who would banish his contributions?)

Acceptable, but,

RTFM have to stay a quick acronym for Please, take a look at your installed documentation!

Alone it's clearly an agression, so such kind of answer or comment worth to be dropped.

If the mentioned documentation is not the default documentation installed with concerned tools, RTFM is not appropriated.

If used in answers or comments, they must be supplemented by a quick and pertinent way to find appropriate documentation, maybe with a command sample ( like in 'My SO answer at: In the bash shell, what is “ 2>&1 ”?', point 4c ), as:

Please RTFM:

man Tps man >man-manpage.ps

or even for a particular section:

man -Pless\ +/^EXPANSION bash

(-: Parenthesis about bash man page:

man -Len bash | col -b | wc -lw
   5375   41026

... approx 41,000 words / 5,000 lines !!!

If it's not a F*#@ manual page, what would you call this? ;-)

Remarks

This other question about Is it OK to leave “What have you tried?” comments? is surely not a duplicate, but in fact, both questions are very close:

They reflect the teachers's legitimate irritation against students who won't to make a minimal effort.

Sometimes, the way the question is asked sound like a king ordering his servants, so if considering The customer is king could be a good commercial practice, this kind of attitude, here, is misplaced or offensive.

Anyway, if you post an answer or a comment, try to stay polite and maybe useful.

But, nobody is forced to waste their effort on an effortless question!!

If asker is human with right to be stupid, answerer is human and have legitimate limits too! :-)

Conclusion

about:

It has become fashionable to defend the use of "RTFM" comments. Some feel it is always OK to use. Some feel it is sometimes OK to use. It is NEVER OK to use. There are better ways of drawing attention to the manual.

• fashionable to defend the use of "RTFM" : This is an arbitrary stance. RTFM acronym exist, so we have to live with.
• always OK to use : Surely no!
• it is sometimes OK to use : It could be resumed in this way.
• It is NEVER OK to use : Surely no, while automatic bans is not a good idea.
• There are better ways of drawing attention to the manual : Of course... in a perfect world!

But there is an human service for human people...