Hello 
I'm Siobhan Curran/Kisa Naumova, and this is my weblog. I tend to write about stuff like crossdressing, Macs, code, cats, wine and Second Life, but in general it's just an ongoing conversation about all sorts of stuff. If you'd like to know a little bit more about what this all is, I recommend starting on this page which has a little bit of info on who I am, and what I'm trying to do — or you could dive into my five years worth of archives if you like.
Otherwise, feel free to close this box and explore...
Stating The Bleeding Obvious
Sometimes I yearn for the days of Usenet, pre September 1993. I'm sure that I'm just exhibiting those well-worn symptoms of 'rose-tintedness' that everyone who finds themselves disheartened with The State Of Current Things™ exhibits. But still.
I wish I had the balls to not worry too much about appearing bolshey on forums and mailing lists. I wish I had the self confidence to stand up sometimes and point out the ludicrousness of some pieces of text that make their way onto my screen.
I wish I was more merciless, and that my frustration somehow managed to vent itself in text form, rather than stewing at the back of my mind, putting me in a bad mood.
Phrases like "RTFM!" and "STFW!" get stuck in my throat, on the verge of hitting the keyboard, yet reeled in by a paranoia of Not Wanting To Seem Rude™.
Whatever happened to lurking? When did it become the norm to fling yourself into things with both feet, rather than taking the time to get a sense of a place? And when did it become no longer acceptible to point out to someone that they've just made a complete tit out of themselves?
Why am I stoping myself from writing:
"Cool. Thanks for that. And did you know that to simulate left clicking on a Mac, all you have to do is take your finger off the command key?"
FFS
Too British!
So very true 
Despite my constant Irish rhetoric, my ancestry has a tendancy of trumping my cultural aspirations 
But, RTFM is a response we need to give, and sometimes to hear, more often.
Indeed. Much better (as I always say) to show someone how to find things out, rather than answer each and every question on an individual basis.
I must just say though, that I'm not always grumpy and cantankerous when it comes to answering questions. Sometimes I really enjoy working through things with people — in no small part because it almost inevitably ends up with me learning something new myself.
It's just that there are different levels of questions — ranging from the blindingly obvious, through the 'immediately addressed in the FAQ', to the ones that make you sit down and think about things in a totally new way.
I guess it's just a signal-to-noise ratio thing. Some days the signals are strong enough to cancel out the noise. Other days the noise is overwhelming.
Remember the time someone asked the question "What's a 'prim'?"...
Plaster 15
I just rather liked the description, for some reason ; )
Arroway
These just arrived in the post. They're by no means cheap, but they're dammed sexy.
I should wash my floor, huh?
arroway.de
As you say, it can be a pleasure to answer people's questions — and yes, often it leads you to find out something new.
I think what is frustrating about those who jump straight in is the feeling that even if you take the trouble to answer them they will be too stupid and lazy to listen or understand because if they weren't they would have read the FAQ or whatever in the first place.
The ones that really wind me up are the ones who ask a question that was answered perfectly adequately just a few posts before in the same thread: "Scroll up the page, moron"!
I blame the "Whatever for Dummies" idea which leads people to believe that there's loads of stuff they "don't need to know".
I've been reading through a few things since I posted that (when actually I should have been doing a million and one other stuff), mostly about netiquette etc. But there's one resource that I think is quite an important one in regards to this...
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
...in particular, the bit that deals with what to do if you get a RTFM
The thing is though, I think there's an enormous difference in the perception (and, most likely, reality) of what a computer is now, as opposed to the mythical halcyon days that I often daydream about.
Computers (and the software that runs on them) are seen as appliances, rather than tools. So in the same way that you don't need to know how a fridge works in order to put food in it to cool (and, in my case, rot), there's an expectation that you don't need to know what all the flashy, whirry things inside a laptop are to be able to send an email.
And I guess this aplies to the internet as well. Perhaps — or at least some of the sites on the web. There's a sense that a mailing list, or a forum, is another 'appliance' — rather than an interconnected group of people, and as a result people tend not to behave the same way they would if they were face-to-face.
I blame Apple 
A Small Fashion-type Diversion
A while back — about two years or so in fact — I managed to get my hands on a rather cute little purple cocktail dress from a charity shop, for £2.
Here's a photo of it...
And here's a photo of me wearing it on my bed, that's proved rather popular over the past couple of years...
The point to this narcissistic necrolinkage is a very small one. It's just to say that today I have discovered that it looks damm cute when worn over the top of a pair of jeans 
The thing about what you need to know is, of course, that no-one can know everything and we all have different interests and priorities etc. But the "Dummies" books attitude seems to encourage the belief that "you don't need to know this stuff ever, in any circumstance" — because there is always somebody else who does know it. It encourages the childish behaviour of stomping into a room crying "It's broke. Fix it".
Unfortunately, it's not just about computers. I sometimes worry that the whole ideology of modern education revolves around the idea that the pupil/student already knows everything necessary.
I do agree with Raymond that formulating a question properly is half way to finding the correct answer.
the whole ideology of modern education revolves around the idea that the pupil/student already knows everything necessary
I'm not sure, from my limited experience (natch), that that's the case. I find that students are very aware of the things they don't know, or, at least, very aware of the things they think they don't know, and the things they think they should know.
As I've rambled on about (endlessly) before, the constant demands of "You must teach me PhotoShop because it's something I need to know how to use" wear me down a little, whereas it's must more important (IMO) for someone to learn how to articulate their ideas than it is to be able to churn out the usual filtered suspects.
Another thing that I find slightly irritating about the Dummies books, is that they encourage the idea that everyone can do everything — or that everything is 'easy' once you learn the right 'tricks'. It shifts the creative process away from the user and into the machine, reducing what some of us have spent years researching into a few gimicky keystrokes, and instilling a sense of 'magic' into the computers instead.
"Look what I got Photoshop to do" (etc)
If you take that tutorial I wrote ages ago as an example, yes, it's quite a simple process. But what doesn't really come across in what I wrote was the constant critical judgements you have to make throughout each of the steps. Will another Soft Light layer improve or ruin the image? How can I get more detail into it without destroying the glow?
The For Dummies... books seem — to me — to suggest that everything is a series of clicks, devoid of any creative talent.
And another thing — while I've got the bit between my teeth — is the strange notion that it's a 'good thing' to be a "Dummie". When exactly did the idea that being incompetent is a virtue emerge?
See this is a problem when you get away from computers and into say...dating or (God Forbid) sex.
They both have Dummies books of their own.
BTW, thanks for the comments on Flickr Siobhan. My photostream is becoming a bit more popular. I bet I might be a Y-list celeb now instead of a Z-list one. Still, I can't decide if KNOWING you're being used for wanking purposes is flattering or not.
They both have Dummies books of their own.
Still, I can't decide if KNOWING you're being used for wanking purposes is flattering or not.
Hmm, I have conflicting views on that one. Must write about it some time...
Ah
Yes, well I guess that would explain why my traffic seems to be a bit higher than normal... (sort-of SFW)
Manties
I honestly have no idea what my reaction to these is at all
And for the benefit of Oxfordshire-based web designers, try Googling them, and seeing who's name appears on the front page...
"When exactly did the idea that being incompetent is a virtue emerge?"
I think it was spin for Microsoft products.
Excellent. I no longer blame Apple.
I didn't mean that the students think they know everything necessary — the fault lies with the teachers. Or rather, ultimately with those who teach the teachers. I was referring to what Frank Furedi called The Culture of Flattery, the idea that universities should adapt what they teach to the needs of students, and that asking students to adapt themselves to the requirements of science or culture is elitism. It is connected, too, to the notion that education should validate and confirm each student's experience of the world, it should be relevant. It is the attitude which has turned school science, for instance, more into a debate about what people say about science than actually studying science itself.
In general, the "Dummies" books are part and parcel of this whole trend towards the reduction of education and learning to finding information and acquiring skills.
Ah, right. Gotcha.
I guess the question I'd ask then, is was Furedi talking about education as a whole, or a specific age-group.
(The answer probably being "STFW" )
LOL. Well, it is an interesting essay — the title is Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? The bit about The Culture of Flattery refers particularly to university students but it is embedded in an argument that involves society as a whole.
But if everyone R'd the FM and S'd the FW what would we do for a living? Displaying superior knowledge is surely one of the things that gives us a feeling of self-worth.
Susan
Manties? Hmm, even the plain briefs are a bit... well... "sissy".
They don't look that generous in the crotch either.
I buy my knickers at Asda or Yours Clothing
Manties? Hmm, even the plain briefs are a bit... well... "sissy".
Well, I'm not complaining, if anyone wants to buy me a pair, my measurements are most likely buried somewhere on this site
They don't look that generous in the crotch either.
Oh. Forget what I just said
@Susan — "Displaying superior knowledge is surely one of the things that gives us a feeling of self-worth." Yes. Admitted. Sometimes it gives me great pleasure to see someone wasting my time, just so I can have a rant about it.
@Stephanie — "The bit about The Culture of Flattery refers particularly to university students". That's what I was wondering — in particular how it would relate to the student-directed learning that forms a very large part of our teaching strategies in the Art School.
I must read that. Ta
Ah
Fame a last (don't let it go to your head bottom 
)
Whatever happened to lurking?
Of course, the problem is that you can't ever see the lurkers, because if you did, they wouldn't be lurkers...
Flicking through the chapter again — it's about museums as well as universities. What Furedi argues is that both have been reconceived as "service providers".
As for "manties" — if they have been designed for men, doesn't that defeat the purpose of transvestism in a sense?
Are women's clothes clothes that have been made specifically for women or clothes that merely resemble the style of what have been regarded as women's clothes? There's a metaphysical question none of the philosophers ever dealt with!
Manties — ah I can just imagine trying to convince people at football that they were for men...
With regard to Stating The Bleeding Obvious, I think it stems from a sense of being dis-connected. As you're not in the same physical room as the other person/people you can say things that, at other times, you wouldn't. Sometimes it adds to the discussion. Other times not.
I didn't know what STFW meant until i did just that...
Now I'm worrying about whether or not I'm one of the people you were talking about earlier 
RTFM is a perfectly good response when faced with someone that obviously hasn't, even though it's there. It's also a very good tool for spotting RL men btw — not just a sexist stereotype.
When, as I was, I was faced with someone who had read the manual but wasn't sure and asked for help, I was quite happy to answer questions endlessly, because if she had tried and didn't get it, either she's stupid (always possible), the help wasn't good (mostly it was, but you always miss a few people however you write it), or she's not a native English speaker (in this particular case I'm remembering both 2 and 3 applied). Questions such as "what's a prim" — well I mentored in SL for too long, far too used to it I'm afraid.
But, I would say students, by and large, are pretty focussed on passing exams, not learning. They're NOT the same, despite what governments, students and exam boards try to make you believe. They're (largely) quite keen to learn what they believe they need to know. The transition to able to integrate it and think about it, analyse it and all those high level cognitive skills — THAT's lacking, probably at all levels. At least in my jaundiced view (I teach FE and HE sectors part time, so I get them at 16, through to 21 and then random older people). The older students are usually better learners, they've learnt elsewhere that they need to think, so they're more or less happy to do it in class too.
Those manties look like bog standard pants from down the market, I wouldn't bother paying an inflated price for them.
I was slightly, temporarily, concerned by the concept of the "7-day" briefs, but only from an advertising perspective.
Manties, the low rent accessories for your 'hosiery' for men, as marketed by Wolford.
Obviously Raymond and Moen haven't worked on Help Desks. They'll dispense their wisdom in dribs and drabs, and only as long you exalt and praise them for devoting their precious and oh-so-much-more-valuable time to you.
"Arrogance" is a reasonable adjective to describe such an attitude.
If they don't want to help, just say so. If they want to engage in the type of troubleshooting, and garner the kudos of being able to do so, they claim — they have to change. "Their" public isn't likely to.
I've worked on a few Help Desks (even managed some), and I can say that that attitude would get any member of my staff fired. And, indeed, I have fired for similar attitudes... Although he was supposed to be a Senior Technician, he acted like a recalcitrant child when it came to sharing his knowledge. Admittedly this was a (supposed) professional, and not the "let me help you — as long as you abide by these conditions, intellectual requirements and an imposed standard of English that so many can't attain" that Raymond and Moen elucidate.
They can provide whatever assistance they want, it's just not a good idea to proclaim you're available to help, and then impose conditions like those. If you're willing to help: help. If not: don't. If it takes too much time, or you're only interested in certain types of questions, ignore those questions that don't interest you. Don't expect, nay: demand, that you be eternally gratefully for a curt "RTFM" or whatever.
Respect is earned, not granted. These guys seem to want it handed to them on a platter.
As an anecdote, I did once hear a coworker complain that she couldn't manage a project because she didn't know (or have) Microsoft Project. I've never been able to figure out why knowing MS Project is a prerequisite for "project management". I know it, I use it, but I don't depend upon it. After all, it's a tool like any other.
But in order to use a tool, you do need to have at least a basic understanding of the thing. And that's what many of the "for Dummies" guides are about: teaching the basics of a technical skill. They do it in a way that clearly works, considering the sales. (They also explain the basics of some ideas, but as that is necessarily rudimentary, they're maybe not as "good" as a more comprehensive 'treatment'. I use them — I learned how to use Quicken and Quickbooks (for example) from them. They're fun, and they're not intimidating for the reader. (I read "MS Project for Dummies" over a coffee one time; it was rather good at explaining how to use MS Project, but not how to manage a project. As it said; managing any project is as much a political skill as it is a technical one. Politics can't be learned from books, and it didn't try.)
But no, those Dummies guides won't teach anyone how to judge the kerning of characters, or decide if a particular affect will work, or if an entry entitled "Bribe to Congressman" is illegal while "Contribution to Congressional Campaign" is. But that's not the point of them: they're good starting points if you're short of time.
Experience counts for a lot. I would never expect someone who's studied electrical wiring to be able to run it. I don't care if what the letters after their name: if you've not run the wires, you're not going to make it as an electrician. But you don't get experience without asking a lot of really dumb questions; there is the occasional genius who doesn't, but I've not run into that many of them over the time I've been (arguably) gainfully employed.
Sorry, I can't speak to education; I departed the environs of the classroom at 16 (19, if you include the apprenticeship program). Too many years ago. The last class I took was Motorcycle Safety. (Wife made me take it, and I'm glad she did! It was a sort of "Motorcycling for Dummies", and rather good, too. Even if I flunked. I passed through my own efforts, later. )
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann, an internet forum or mailing-list is not the same thing as a help-desk. Raymond's time is precious to him. Why should he — or anyone else — give it up, for free — to answer stupid questions? Surely it is arrogant to expect someone else to be at your beck and call? Wasn't that the original point — about people appearing on a site and immediately demanding everyone's attention and time on trivia?
But, I would say students, by and large, are pretty focussed on passing exams, not learning.
Which is a big problem. We teach them just enough to get through the exams without being able to just stop and explore certains aspects of the curriculum just for the hell of it. If it's not on the syllabus, and its non being examined then questions may well be asked about why you are wasting time on it.... which is a shame.
Because of school league tables you sometimes get situations where the teachers want the students to pass more than the students want to. So the students get used to being spoonfed with lots of additional material all produced by the teacher.
As a teacher myself I once had a sixth form student who had missed lots of lessons over the year, complain because the teachers we not producing reams of help materials for him to get him caught up. And the Head insisted we did just that.
Students are being used to being spoon-fed, and this is now making its way into higher education, as the same students don't have the skills to just find out stuff for themselves.
No, Stephanie. If his time is so valuable: he shouldn't spend it answering any questions. He has set himself up as a resource, available for troubleshooting, and as such can expect to receive a fair number of dimly conceived questions.
People do, unfortunately, expect help to be at their beck and call: they won't apply the same standard to themselves, just to those they turn to for help. (It's one reason I won't go into personal computer help business. I'd feel obliged to answer all the questions posed, even with the ubiquitous "I don't know". But when someone says they'll help, people expect an answer. It's not a symptom of technology, but of being human.
Raymond and Moen have clearly gotten fed up of this: and have decided to try and limit the questions being posed. But will anyone look at the essay? Realize it applies to them? And be grateful — as is clearly stated in the essay — be eternal grateful for a small morsel of supposed help, tossed their way like a piece of litter?
Raymond and Moen tried to limit the requests for help in a way that comes across as arrogant, conceited and trivializing. While it was probably unintentional, I have no way of knowing that.
If they consider their time to be more valuable than others', they should charge for it. In general, they must expect dross with quality questions. But they will not earn my respect with their attitude.
People hope the plumber and the electrician are at the end of a phone call. It's unreasonable to expect a freely given help service to be the same. But people get upset when the plumber, electrician, TV tech and the person who promises help on the Internet are not at their beck and call.
Think of it this way: most people don't read the manual. Most people don't know that their question falls into the category of "already answered"; most people don't know how to phrase the question and most people simply want to be treated with a little respect. Disdain and contempt don't fit that last requirement.
Still, Raymond and Moen (et al) can offer whatever help they want. They just shouldn't be annoyed when others' expect more than they're willing to give. They're the ones not limiting the questions: oh, give us hard questions only! (They could try 'please', but don't.) Who defines "hard"?
Maybe I'm being prejudiced, but contempt for the newbie and the unwilling don't seem to indicate a willingness to help others. I hope that explains my point!
Carolyn Ann
most people don't read the manual. Most people don't know that their question falls into the category of "already answered"; most people don't know how to phrase the question
But why is it unreasonable to ask them to read the manual, check if it's been already answered, and learn how to phrase the question?
I get a little niggled sometimes, when visitors to my blog make assumptions about me that a quick trip to my "about" page would clarify. Now, admittedly, that page isn't immediately obvious as to where it is, but suppose I had a big link at the top of the page marked "FAQ" (or something), then surely I would have every right to get annoyed with people for asking me questions that one click would have answered.
and most people simply want to be treated with a little respect
Well that's fair enough, but why should people expect respect to come by default? If someone presumes that I'm there to 'serve' them by asking me ridiculously stupid questions, do I not deserve to treat them with the same lack of respect that they showed me?
The problem here is nothing to do with levels of intelligence and respect, it's about people expecting things to just land in their lap without applying any effort themselves.
I'd agree: but that's a different point to the one I was making. Believe me, I've answered more than a few questions that were in training courses.
One of my favorites was a very senior manager/banker who cried merry hell over the network being down — again. As the Senior Engineer, I was dispatched (well, he called me directly, and then called my boss, his boss and the CIO), and I found... He hadn't switched on his monitor.
What was I to do? I could — in the spirit or Raymond and Moen — berate him for not checking the obvious. Or I could fiddle with the back of the computer, pretend to do something and declare his issue "fixed". He was happy, didn't look a complete fool, my boss was happy and I got the satisfaction of helping another unhappy customer.
It's part and parcel of being in a helpful role, whether it's volunteered time, or as an employee. You can hope people read the manual, or pay attention in the training class, but to require it is a bit like, well, expecting car drivers to see you when you're on a motorcycle. You can expect it, but if you work on the assumption that they will, you'll not live too much longer. People don't do what's expected, and that doesn't come with any penalty when they don't do it. It's human nature, and it's been complained about for centuries.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've learned where your "About" page is. (And I did apologize!) I'm not an expert on visual design — I know very little about it — so I can't "speak" to that aspect. I wasn't immediately aware of your "About" page (having seen it once, by accident, awhile back — and then not remembering it until you pointed out that you did have one), but once I knew of it, I realized that that part of my argument had become moot. Your correction on the post more than sufficed to allay any incorrect impressions I provided. I did base that point on an erroneous assumption: I simply forgot that you had the "about" page. I did check for "FAQ", or "About" on the front page, but didn't click/move the mouse/etc simply because that never occurred to me. My apologies for not investigating more comprehensively.
As far as the "respect" thing goes: any interaction with the public begins with respect. The provider (usually) has to treat the customer with respect, even if the customer doesn't reciprocate. Then you work from there; sometimes the relationship deteriorates, sometimes it gets even better. It can't get better when the client is considered to be beneath the provider. That's just plain customer service; it's also how I was taught to address people by my parents. It's something I value: don't denigrate based on a presumption that you're somehow "better". And that's what Raymond and Moen imply, more than amply, in their missive.
They should just say something like "only the really tough problems addressed. If we ignore you, it's because your problem isn't hard enough to engage our interest. Please read the manual or search the web." The exact wording, of course, is open to debate. But the conditions of receiving help are exactly laid out; expectations are set in advance. No one can claim to be disappointed, although they open themselves to charges of being elitist.
And yes, people do expect things to land in their laps with scarce effort or sacrifice. It's a frequent criticism of society; and one that's been voiced for quite some time. It's never going to change: it's simply the way people are. It's best to work with it, and not get too angry about those who make no effort. They don't notice, and your blood pressure surely could do without the raising.
Carolyn Ann
PS I feel I'm defending two points here. One that people are simply people, and the other that customer service is important whenever we deal with customers. Regardless of how much we pay for their services. So if my replies seem a little wandering, that's why.
Go back to the top of the page, Carolyn Ann, and you'll see that the post was about netiquette, about the way some people behave on forums and mailing-lists and the like. All your remarks about customer service — while they are perfectly good remarks in themselves — are quite simply beside the point.
In my first reply I had in mind one particular forum I frequent. It is devoted to the file-sharing of music scores. Siobhan's original point, as I understand it, is that when you join such a forum you should take a little time to acclimatise yourself — ie lurk. If you do take that time then on this forum you will learn that its raison d'etre is to swap the scores of rare, unusual, out-of-print repertoire. There is, on the front page, an introduction on "what to do", mentioning, among other things that there is an index to all the scores that have been posted so far. There is a prominent "search" button. There is a FAQ and a WIKI (links on every page). Throughout the thread there are repeated injunctions from old hands to use the index and the search function before you make any requests. And what happens? People constantly request stuff that has already been posted (and is still available for download). People make requests even though the item they want was posted the very same day in answer to a request only 5 or 6 posts previously (and so visible on the same page! — this happens more than you might think). And so on. It really isn't surprising that many get somewhat annoyed at this. But actually, on the whole, they are polite, they point the newbie in the right direction, they gently remind them of the "rules", there's occasionally some mild testiness. But can you blame them for sometimes swearing at the monitor?
Yes, it is understandable for some testiness to be displayed when the obvious is ignored. But the link to Raymond and Moen was a little more than that: the arrogance of those two (and their supposed or desired role) veered into the territory of "how to belittle people asking for help".
Maybe I should have said "bad example, here's why", but I didn't think of that. It is a bad example of how to address those who look for help: their disdain reflects on them, not the disdained. I wouldn't ask those two for a thing: they might get annoyed or something.
Telling people to read the FAQ, About or whatever is fine: if there's no immediate need to do so, they won't. An Internet Customer Service application I helped put together proved: some people won't even read the information they specifically requested.
It's a truism in the service field: someone, somewhere will always defeat the foolproof design. In other words, there will always be better fool. Why should the Internet forums be any different?
Foolish questions are something we (have to) put up with; complaining about them merely helps blow off some steam. And it doesn't annoy anyone, because no one ever thinks of themselves as the fool in question.
Carolyn Ann
Too British!
Although you are right, there is an increasing tendency to jump in the deep end and appeal for help when you have no understanding of the basics. I was asked about a follow-cam script yesterday, the person is trying to get llSensorRepeat etc. to work, but doesn't know how to use a timer and thinks you need to put listeners on timers too...
OK, different events, but listeners are easier and more widely used than sensors I'd have thought. Arggh!
But, RTFM is a response we need to give, and sometimes to hear, more often.