rowe_newsgroups
4/14/2008 6:51:00 PM
On Apr 14, 2:21 pm, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> I would do exactly what you suggest I not tell you that I do - I'd just
> ignore the poster and not waste my time.
>
> Honestly, if politely explaining how Google may be the better route to go
> doesn't work, then why would you think that a sarcastic response would? At
> that point, you are just wasting your time.
>
> -Scott
>
> "rowe_newsgroups" <rowe_em...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e8dadcf-262a-4391-b098-f8d47a264fea@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 8:07 am, "Scott M." <s...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> >> > After all, aren't we here to help other professions and not to babysit
> >> > people too lazy to do some research?
>
> >> True, but we're not here to be sarcastic and call people names either. I
> >> recently told a poster the same thing, but I did provide the answer and
> >> politely told him how he could be better served by Google.
>
> >> -Scott
>
> > I see your point, and that's very good advice for users who do not
> > know to search google or the usenet archives.
>
> > But what would you do if that same user you told use google and still
> > gave him the answer continued to post with the same lack of effort for
> > months following? Would you continue to answer his 20+ questions a
> > month when it's clear he will not do any of the work himself? Or would
> > you finally get sarcastic with him in response to his unwillingness in
> > hopes that he might respond better to a more blunt approach?
>
> > Oh, and please don't go for the "then why don't you just ignore him"
> > post - remember I'm only here defending Kerry's response, which isn't
> > my place, I'm just shedding some light on why I believe he made that
> > post.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Seth Rowe [MVP]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, I'm already ignoring most posts of his, unless they are an
original question that couldn't be found easily on google or the
archives. I only joined this thread to shed some light on a possible
reason why Kerry posted the sarcastic response.
With that said, maybe the reason for the sarcasm wasn't to reach the
OP directly, but to inform the other posters to not post answers in
hopes of getting the OP to do some of the work?
This obviously isn't the best solution, so how would you (or others
reading) suggest a way to stop "lazy" posters and encourage the people
in need of help to do some of the work themselves? The benefits are
obvious, as volunteers we don't spend all day hoping to answer every
question that comes our way. Wouldn't it be better to only have to
answer questions that haven't been answered ad nauseum and be able to
focus our limited time on people who truely could benefit from our
experience?
Thanks,
Seth Rowe [MVP]