moderated Re: Downloadable Manual

Comments in bold and “< >” below.


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

On 18/01/2020 17:57, wrote:


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*.

<In this case you speak without knowledge.  I has asked about the “speech bubble” mentioned in another thread.  I was told to look at the upper right of a web page.  What I saw on that web page was different, apparently I was not visiting it “online”, whatever that means.  Because the specific thing I was directed to was NOT PRESENT, I took a screen shot of it.  If the person to whom I spoke in that thread had looked at my email the problem would have been obvious.  I’m STILL don’t know any more than I did when I asked my 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.

<This is precisely the specific “culture” I complain of.  Attachments can only be PROPERLY ignored if a question is clear without it, and there is NO way to determine that with certainty without looking.  FUNCTION here should take precedence over  FORM (or convenience).>

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.  

<When a screen shot can provide that “specific information” with clarity, it is NOT appropriate to PRESUME information insufficient by ignoring the screen shot.>
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.

<Let me put this another way.  An effective responder makes every good faith effort to collect any and all information from a post.  If the responder’s confusion is due to “going through the motions” rather than providing a good faith response, they are NOT doing the “job” their title/position requires.>


Join to automatically receive all group messages.