On Jan 18, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Samuel Murray <samuelmurray@...> wrote:

On 18/01/2020 17:57, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:

<snip>

Several issues stand out to me in the overall.  I recently had a message “rejected” because I sent a screenshot self-explanatory to the topic with “???”.

It may be obvious to you what the picture says, but there is a chance that it might not be obvious to someone else.  Saying "???" only tells us that you think something is wrong, and the picture is a clue.

I found that disrespectful.  A simple request for further information could and should have been made.

Well, I'm not criticizing, but: earlier you complain about the large number of messages, and now you find it is okay that in your case, 3+ messages should be posted (the initial unclear message, then the reply asking for clarification, and then the reply) instead of 1.

But it get's worse: if you post a message that people don't understand (or that different people may interpret differently), you're bound to receive not one reply but several replies (either from people who ask for clarification or from people who have different ideas about what it is what you were saying, and then each responding according to his own interpretation).  All of this is a recipe for a multitude of messages.

I fully agree that a picture is worth a 1000 words, but a 1000 words isn't always enough if it isn't the right 1000 words.  Typing a short 2-sentence paragraph explaining what it is that you're trying to say, shouldn't take too much time.

There are times when an *answer* can be given as a single picture, without any text, but a picture alone is seldom sufficient as a *question*.

Apparently some, if not all GMF advisors/moderators don’t receive screen shots sent...

No, I can confirm that attachments are included in the "message approval needed" message received by moderators (at least, in my test posts).

That doesn't mean that moderators look at the attachments.  I myself ignore attachments if the textual content of the message is lacking.

Again and again I read repeated good faith attempts by various parties to explain a location or procedure when each side is looking at different screens [online vs offline emails, menus, etc.]

Yes, but that is what happens when the initial posters fail to include sufficient information in their posts.  

It means that responders respond to what they *think* the original poster meant, when the original poster thought that he had omitted only that which is obvious.

Samuel