40

What content exactly triggers the "Sorry, posts can't contain that content" warning?

A little explanation would be nice.

After a bit of trial and error I realised it was the LMGTFY link (that I'd qualified with "I don't usually do LMGTFY links").

I know LMGTFY or letmebingthatforyou are usually used in a snarky tone, but sheesh on cheese, some kind of heads-up would be nice.

Example:

Enter image description here

|improve this question
  • 3
    There's a lmbtfy too? – Amarghosh Jan 12 '10 at 14:59
  • @Amargosh yep, there is. I think it was Phil Haack, but I could be wrong – Dan F Jan 14 '10 at 10:42
  • I've added an up vote. I agree. Clear error messages are definitely appropriate. LMGTFY while unacceptable here is used elsewhere with no problem. A moderator at forums.asp.net used it as a reply to one of my first posts there. I did not take LMGTFY as snarky ... myself and others enjoy someone preparing a LMGTFY when it is done in the right spirit. I doubt that Google created LMGTFY as a weapon of sarcasm. Many things can be abused. Personally, I would allow LMGTFY at SO. Regardless, your question is about something far more important: clear, consise, helpful, and friendly error messages. – gerryLowry Apr 17 '10 at 0:25
  • @Amarghosh Let me Bing that for you? – nyuszika7h Mar 12 '11 at 17:00
  • @NYu that'd be so kind of you :) – Amarghosh Mar 14 '11 at 14:50
  • @Amarghosh tinyurl.com/4dlw5cl – nyuszika7h Mar 14 '11 at 14:53
24

Jeff Atwood's answer wins.

But seriously, I agree with Dan F that an explanation is in order. Especially since this isn't a minor technical point, but an issue about which we need to educate users. The explanation shouldn't just be that LMGTFY is banned, but why these links are discouraged completely disallowed.

|improve this answer
  • 4
    You remember the whole 'users don't read' thing, right? :-D – George Stocker Jan 12 '10 at 14:24
  • 6
    If we tell people where the cliff is, it won't be as entertaining for us to watch them falling off. Over and over again. Ooop, there goes another one! teeheeheehee... – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Mar 9 '10 at 14:48
38

I recommend checking here.

|improve this answer
  • 4
    Haha, that made me giggle. Thanks Jeff. Srsly tho, put that in the "Sorry, posts can't contain..." message then? Normal users will see the funny side. Idiots will, er, what does an idiot do? – Dan F Jan 12 '10 at 11:35
  • 23
    You are not indirectly suggesting that he should use is.gd or similar services instead, are you? ;) – Stephan202 Jan 12 '10 at 11:35
  • 1
    Whatever it takes to get the message through to thickheads like myself is fine in my book :-) As long as Mr Atwood doesn't decide to rickroll us it's all good – Dan F Jan 12 '10 at 11:37
  • I agree with the sentiment of not allowing/encouraging lmgtfy links. If you get a "thickhead" who has clearly done zero research before asking the question then you can downvote and/or leave comments to suggest they do more research. This should help that user ask better questions in the future, or make them edit their question to explain why the Googled results didn't meet their needs. Alternatively, answer the question with the first few hits found on Google. LMGTFY comes over as aggressive, makes those new users who overlook Google feel bad, and wont stop the persistent offenders. – Martin Peck Jan 12 '10 at 12:51
  • 4
    well, like I said in google result #3, the goal is to make doing the wrong thing (posting lmgtfy links) a bit more difficult than doing the right thing (posting relevant comments and answers). – Jeff Atwood Jan 12 '10 at 12:51
  • 2
    @Jeff: Google results are for everybody different... actually, for me, there is no relevant link (except for this very page) in the first result page, at least nothing you said. – fretje Jan 12 '10 at 12:57
  • 9
    @fretje: Thank you!! :) This is a perfect example of why LMGTFY is a waste of time. (I mean on Stack Overflow it's a waste of time. It's still hilarious to email LMGTFY links to your co-workers. Carry on with that.) – Bill the Lizard Jan 12 '10 at 14:01
  • 2
    I was wondering how long it would take people to notice and admit this ;-p – Marc Gravell♦ Jan 12 '10 at 14:56
  • 3
    Round 1 to Jeff, hands-down. And for me, the "Ban lmgtfy" post was result #1. :) – John Rudy Jan 12 '10 at 16:57
  • 1
    Yes meta has the top search result!! :D – Gordon Gustafson Feb 12 '10 at 0:41
  • I would be up for a ban on url shortening.. asynchronously replace all urls that respond with a redirect to their final target – user165187 Sep 15 '12 at 7:46
  • It's funny how the first google result is this where the top answers (and top rated comment to the question) are against banning lmgtfy! – Shahbaz Nov 14 '12 at 12:51
  • 3
    @JeffAtwood i agree with banning this link. but that's not what OP is asking. you can't honestly think this is a good way to word this error message? i've read your blog, i know you advocate for usability and human factors. this error message is awful-- if i could, i'd flag as 'not a real error message' – Jeff Dec 13 '12 at 0:59
  • @jeff so you want to give everyone reading it a solution key for bypassing the check? Perhaps think this through a little more. – Jeff Atwood Dec 14 '12 at 5:54
  • 1
    @JeffAtwood i was under the assumption that once the user realizes what is wrong, he will remove the link and post a normal comment, rather than try to circumvent it. this was certainly the case for myself and OP. i don't think people are really that insistent on posting lmgtfy links, they just don't know it's not allowed, and this error message doesn't help. – Jeff Dec 14 '12 at 5:56
6

Ok, let's follow through with your suggestion as a thought experiment.

Tonight, Jarrod Dixon gets word from Jeff that you're right, and that they should implement something to tell everyone that LMGTFY links are banned.

Implementation time

  • 20 minutes: Time spent discussing this with Jarrod
  • 30 minutes: Time spent specifying the changes
  • 30 minutes: Questions from Jarrod and refinement of specification
  • 30 minutes: Coding a regular expression (uggh) or Server-side parsing to figure out when someone is using a LMGTFY link
  • 30 minutes: Testing
  • 5 minutes: Checkin, writeup

Total: 2 hours, 25 minutes

Time getting around that barrier

  • 1 minute later: Someone complains that the responsiveness of the site is just a little bit slower (either due to having to run this server side check, or due to extra JS loading)
  • 5 minutes later: Someone who enjoys posting LMGTFY links decides to get around it by using is.gd

Total: 6 minutes

Or:

  • <1 minute: When you see a LMGTFY post, flag it.

Or: You can just clutter up space that people don't read with yet another piece of text.

|improve this answer
  • If they'd have to write down everything we're allowed and not allowed to do, plus examples of how it's done, plus little pointers on how to do it better, the whole thing would read like a legal document and would take up a few screens. That's why it's sometimes best to let users figure stuff by themselves, such as in this case (the OP figured out it was the lmgtfy part that was not allowed). – alex Jan 12 '10 at 14:10
  • 4
    Most of that work has already been done, since the OP did get a response "Sorry, posts can't contain that content." The only changes involved would be to change the error text to something more descriptive, and perhaps throw in a link to the relevant FAQ. – Ether Jan 12 '10 at 16:45
  • 2
    yes, but this ties in with other anti-spam blacklist measures, where providing specific feedback is tantamount to saying "oh, here's how you get around this." Not gonna happen, my friends. – Jeff Atwood Jan 13 '10 at 1:29
  • @JeffAtwood % of people trying to bot post who will try less due to not getting detailed errror message vs. the % of people who will not bother posting an answer due to lack of information in error (with added weight that the user is less likely to try and answer in the future). I guess that hope is that the posters who are turned off post sub optimal answers anyway.. Why not just split your rules into two groups: bot stoppers and civility.. if its a bot stopper then say nothing if it relates to civility then tell them why. – user165187 Sep 15 '12 at 7:33
  • if the refactor is a bitch just start by making everything a bot stopper until someone gets a chance to review or there is a meta post about it. – user165187 Sep 15 '12 at 7:53
4

I've never thought of lmgtfy as a rude thing. I've always found it funny. I was going to use it here, but changed it to go directly on google after reading all this (and Jeff's link that leads to the other question).

It took me a while to realize that was the issue. First I had a smiley face and thought "is it the smile?!".

I don't know how this message could be better without tying it to a blacklist or ban thing or whatever, but I think this is not done in a good way right now. It's confusing at least for people, like me, who don't intend any bad or rudeness.

|improve this answer
  • Even if you don't intend it to be rude -- think about what the question poster's impression might be. There's also a difference between a post saying "you should just google to find the answer" (which is discouraged, because SO is meant to be a canonical source of information) and saying something like "a google search for 'AJAX COBOL best practices' finds three or four interesting blog posts on the subject that are worth a read." – balpha Mar 9 '10 at 13:36
  • 1
    @balpha Yes, I understand all that... I'm just talking, like the OP, about the error message in itself, nothing else. But since you brought the subject, and still on a side note, I don't really agree with banning it, I'd go with a solution like google's "did you mean" rather than "you can't do that". But I understand the reason - it's a way to make it much more difficult (or maybe not that much) to do a bad thing (or something perceived as bad for a large enough number of people). – cregox Mar 9 '10 at 14:37
  • Have you actually read the message LMGTFY shows on the page? That plus the delay and you still don't consider it rude? – Gnome Apr 8 '10 at 18:14
  • @gnome yes, I've read it, I never considered anything there as "rude" until I've came to this question. I'm not saying I can't understand why people consider it tho, it's just it never crossed my mind before. People get offended way too easily from my point of view, but again, I'm not normal. – cregox Apr 12 '10 at 18:30
  • 1
    cheeky yes, rude no.. I agree some people will be bothered by it, but is it worth banning? why not leave it to the usual risks of getting downvoted etc? it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round and I for one would be chuckling at getting a lmgtfy answer - so long as it shows me the correct search term to use. I suppose it depends on the wider context and for that reason I am defo against an outright ban. – user165187 Sep 15 '12 at 7:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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