Why didn't I think of this before.

[mrflibble]

From this day forward I strive to make the world a better place by replying to all the lazy bleepingbleepers in this forum with a wave, a smile and a Fry & Laurie youtube video.

Improvement alround I would say.

 

[barry]

Well done! And, I, too, although not a Brit, shall also smite said perpetrators with sarcasm and wit.

 

[mrflibble]

And since this has been moved ... the "forum" in the above is mostly the "PLD, SPLD, GAL, CPLD, FPGA Design" subforum, since the aforementioned bleepingbleepers are a sizable chunk of traffic there. The rest of edaboard seems less affected. Or maybe I just notice it less, I don't know.

 

[bigdogguru]

From this day forward I strive to make the world a better place by replying to all the lazy bleepingbleepers in this forum with a wave, a smile and a Fry & Laurie youtube video.

Or you could just ignore them.

Typically, if they do not receive the attention and the handouts they seek, they often migrate their attention to other regions of the Internet.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid no sections of the forum are immune from those seeking to have all their work performed by someone else.


BigDog

 

[ads-ee]

I think there should be some sort of quick way to add a LMGTFY link based on the title of the post. Would save forum members the time of creating that link. Just have a LMGTFY button on the quick reply toolbar that stuffs the post's title in. After every one of the replies to their posts ends up on a google search maybe just maybe they will start there next time.

 

[mrflibble]

I mostly ignore them already. Mostly along the lines of "if you cannot think of anything nice to say, don't say anything". But at least a Fry & Laurie video qualifies as "something nice".

A feature I miss a bit in this forum software is where you can flag a thread as "don't read this", a bit a la killfile on usenet. Then you could just read a lazy bleepingbleeper post once, flag it, and never ever see it again. Would work fine for me. But alas, the forum does not have this and there is always some person much kinder and more patient than me that actually does reply, and then the thread bumps up again into view.

So I am all for giving them 0 attention and seeing the lazy bugger off, but that doesn't happen due to said nicer people. Looking at you ads-ee! Where do you get your patience from?

 

[bigdogguru]

So I am all for giving them 0 attention and seeing the lazy bugger off, but that doesn't happen due to said nicer people. Looking at you ads-ee! Where do you get your patience from?

Alas, it is still under development. :roll:

A feature I miss a bit in this forum software is where you can flag a thread as "don't read this", a bit a la killfile on usenet. Then you could just read a lazy bleepingbleeper post once, flag it, and never ever see it again. Would work fine for me. But alas, the forum does not have this and there is always some person much kinder and more patient than me that actually does reply, and then the thread bumps up again into view.

I'm not familiar with that particular feature, perhaps it was a feature of the previous version of forum software.


BigDog

 

[mrflibble]

Alas, it is still under development. :grin:


BigDog

Well, darnit! Just my luck. ;-)

Come to think of it, maybe I'll write a greasemonkey script just for the occasion. As a bit of an exercise + bleepingbleeper reduction for my sensitive eyeballs. Add a LMGTFY button to it as per ads-ee's suggestion and we're all set. Ah, and of course a Fry & Laurie video randomizer. Gotta have that.

 

[ads-ee]

So I am all for giving them 0 attention and seeing the lazy bugger off, but that doesn't happen due to said nicer people. Looking at you ads-ee! Where do you get your patience from?

The problem I have is eventually another semi-knowledgeable to completely clueless individual will reply with a answer that is utterly incorrect or a non sequitur and the post moves up.

I sort of like the idea of voting things up and down like stack exchange has, but extended to the original posts themselves. So if a post gets voted down a bunch it basically get relegated to a "poor quality questions" area, and hopefully experiences a slow painful electronic death. ;-)

 

[mrflibble]

The problem I have is eventually another semi-knowledgeable to completely clueless individual will reply with a answer that is utterly incorrect or a non sequitur and the post moves up.

I understand the sentiment. But on the other hand, an exceedingly lazy poster getting an utterly incorrect answer does have a certain level of poetry to it. May they take the utterly incorrect answer as gospel and let reality be their feedback.

Of course after they left we should provide the proper answer for future googlers. Say a month or so later, so the steaming pile of the original perpetrator has been graded, incorporated into a quality design, whatever.

I sort of like the idea of voting things up and down like stack exchange has, but extended to the original posts themselves. So if a post gets voted down a bunch it basically get relegated to a "poor quality questions" area, and hopefully experiences a slow painful electronic death. ;-)

Indeed. The stack exchange model work pretty well for this sort of thing, and has as added bonus that the content quality benefits. And on the long term that tends to attract more quality content. And as such more views for those ads. Just saying.

But some way of modding good questions up and exceedingly poor questions down would be beneficial IMO. It works out pretty well for other places, of which stack exchange is a good example.

 

[Mattylad]

Unfortunately posting LMGTFY links has the drawback of the wrath of the moderators, telling us off for not being helpful.

As if telling someone how to search is not helpful.

 

[bigdogguru]

We, the moderators, are currently in discussion concerning the forum policy in regards to what exactly is permissible content in a reply.

However, in the interim I will need to kindly insist that all members refrain from posting any content not specifically and directly related to the OP's question or request and avoid posting Google search links of any form.

In short, regardless of whether you find the thread nonviable, disagreeable or not up to your standards, please simply need to ignore it and refrain from posting any content not directly related to the OP's question, query or request.

And yes, unfortunately mrflibble, that means no more posting of entertaining but unrelated videos for their enjoyment.

I would also add, for those of you who cannot resist urge to offer your advice unrelated to the thread topic, I would strongly suggest you offer such advice via the PM system, rather than posting it within an unrelated thread.

As such advice can often be misconstrued, it is far better to issue it in private, rather than in public.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

BigDog

 

[Mattylad]

So why do I have the above post as a PM?

 

[mrflibble]

No more Fry & Laurie? Noooooooooooooooooooooo.

Anyways, I look forward to hearing the politically correct embodiment of "kindly please consider possibly using google if it is convenient kind sir that I respect very much indeed". Seriously. Anyways, I'll ignore those posts. Problem solved. :thumbsup:

- - - Updated - - -

On a totally unrelated matter: is there any way to have threads started by people on your ignore list to not show up at all? Right now I've added a few pro-active indivuals that I respect very much indeed to that list. And when I click on a thread by these fine people at least it doesn't show up their valued content anymore, which is progress. But not showing any thread started by a person on that list would be even better in terms of time allocation of all parties concerned. Is there a profile configuration setting for something like this? I tried, but failed to find anything.

Incidentally, the ajax call to add a user to the ignore list adds the security token to the POST request twice.

 

[bigdogguru]

So why do I have the above post as a PM?

Because we value your opinion, we are currently discussing the posting of LMGTFYs in replies and we did not want you to feel left out. :grin:

No more Fry & Laurie? Noooooooooooooooooooooo.

Anyways, I look forward to hearing the politically correct embodiment of "kindly please consider possibly using google if it is convenient kind sir that I respect very much indeed". Seriously. Anyways, I'll ignore those posts. Problem solved. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, yes for the time being, no more Fry & Laurie. :bang:

I will post the results of our discussion of the topic and I truly appreciate your cooperation concerning this matter.

On a totally unrelated matter: is there any way to have threads started by people on your ignore list to not show up at all? Right now I've added a few pro-active indivuals that I respect very much indeed to that list. And when I click on a thread by these fine people at least it doesn't show up their valued content anymore, which is progress. But not showing any thread started by a person on that list would be even better in terms of time allocation of all parties concerned. Is there a profile configuration setting for something like this? I tried, but failed to find anything.

Incidentally, the ajax call to add a user to the ignore list adds the security token to the POST request twice.

As I am unfamiliar with that particular feature, I am unable to comment on it, however I will look into it and let you know what I find out.

BigDog

 

[Mattylad]

I am a firm believer that if someone comes onto the forum and asks questions without searching for the answer then the MUST be first shown how to search for the answer.

Why should all other members waste a lot of time writing replies when they may have already done it several times or the answer is already posted and easily found via a search engine. Many new posters are very lazy in just asking the same question that has been asked only days before and visible in one of the existing threads in a forum.

So [please consider this when having your discussion.

An LMGTFY link is nothing more than helping someone learn how to use a search engine to search for answers to what they are asking for.

In fact, we could do with a sticky at the top of forums showing people "how" to search, how to use the forum search and search engines and how to phrase their questions for the best results.
It's knowing this that helps me find stuff that others cannot.

 

[bigdogguru]

In fact, we could do with a sticky at the top of forums showing people "how" to search, how to use the forum search and search engines and how to phrase their questions for the best results.
It's knowing this that helps me find stuff that others cannot.

Good suggestion, we will certainly consider it in our discussions.


BigDog

 

[D.A.(Tony)Stewart]

The menu for a New Post Thread should have a checklist , which includes,
Have you got relevant info?
[] checked for obvious solution in a search engine?
[] included background info on attempts to solve that failed
[] included an image file of schematic & layout pict. with p/n links or sketches
[] included clear images of captured signals ?
[] is CODE formatted using [#] icon
[] Use icon bar above e.g.globe for hyperlinks, and picture & video insert icons

- - - Updated - - -

Good suggestion, we will certainly consider it in our discussions.


BigDog

Often ESL language barriers or inexperience requires KEYWORDs for successful searches. One can help teach by keyword ...

 

[FvM]

An LMGTFY link is nothing more than helping someone learn how to use a search engine to search for answers to what they are asking for.

As far as I'm aware of any links you posted in discussions have been profound and helpful. But I have seen other links being "nothing more" than an indirect way to tell how stupid the original post is. Even if the post somehow deserves a rebuff, this reaction isn't helpful and will hardly cause the OP to reconsider his way of learning.

Present forum rules require a substantial reply content related to the question.

Replies
Please avoid replies like “google it” or “read the datasheet” or if you give such answers provide a couple of links or the specific chapter/page that the user should read.

A bare LMGTFY link may be helpful in some cases, e.g. if the OP doesn't know the right keywords for his question. But if the variety of hits already overwelms him, it isn't. Telling a few useful keywords and some hits to observe is a neater way in this case.

 

[barry]

I'm afraid I disagree with a lot of this. Although language is certainly an issue in some cases (and those are pretty apparent), I believe that most of the posts in question here are due to abject laziness. If someone can post a question here about an "inverting op-amp circuit", they are, I am sure, quite capable of doing a search of "inverting op-amp circuits". If they are capable of navigating to this forum, they are capable of doing a search. And it's not just laziness in doing some prior work before posting, it's also laziness in formulating a question. We've all seen dozens of those "My board doesn't work, why?" questions. (The post about FPGAs, memory and genomes that started this whole discussion is a classic example of a poster too lazy to formulate a proper question.)

If someone gets a response calling out their laziness and offering no further information, I'm pretty sure they WILL reconsider other ways of approaching their problem. If you don't want to respond to an annoying post, then don't. Personally, I find some of these bad-post threads the most entertaining.