Q&A Moderation

[Yori]

 

 

Oh, and let's look at the dictionary for definitions:

OED gives "Unwilling to work or use energy", Wiktionary gives "Unwilling to do work or make an effort.". So there you go.

 

To your "cut the chase", no.

I take that definition to be about someone in general rather than not using a certain amount of energy in a specific situation. Applying that definition in the way you are, someone who chooses not to walk to the store is lazy. (Auto-reply to replies stating that driving is still energy - so is asking questions)

 

This is like the google vs ask debates. Some people are really fussy about people who don't google every time they have a question (I guess that could also apply here. Even if its not in the q/a, google in case other places have the answer.) and would consider them lazy. Other people don't really see much of an issue in the first place to say that they're lazy. I fall into the latter category.

---

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

 

Sands, if you are attempting to equate having to say something multiple times in the same conversation when you're replying to people speaking to you with asking no one in particular a question that someone else asked in the past, you can't. Sorry.

 

Now, asking someone else the same question over and over or other questions that lead to them saying the same multiple times? That's more equivalent.

 

Like I said already in case you tried this, there'd be an argument for inconvenience if anyone was prompted to answer threads when they see them. This is about letting people answer them rather than telling people to ignore them, not telling you or anyone else to answer question threads you see, at all. Regardless of whether or not it was asked already.

[Sands]

It is pretty lazy to not Google your problem first, though? And very disrespectful to others. Like saying your time is so much more valuable than that of others so they have to waste their own time answering the question you could have gotten an answer to yourself. You have all this knowledge you can use, right there, just waiting for you to dive in. Why don't you? Sounds pretty lazy to me.

 

Oh and redefining terms doesn't make them right, you know. Nor does using an analogy that doesn't even really fit in the first place.

 

This is a pretty hilarious thread, all in all. Hey, .info folks, you know how we've implied that the future is bleak for this community many times? I think this is a sneak peek to the future.

[Yori]

I didn't redefine anything. I was saying that I think that was about general use to someone. The text is still the same. No, it's not "very disrespectful" to not google a question.

 

Some very disrespectful and uncaring people (like me) naturally ask someone a question of what they're saying when they're in a conversation, as naturally as someone would when speaking to them face to face, and it's as unnatural for the same people to think of googling first as it would be to take out your phone and google while you're speaking to someone right there. Face to face, or direct answers. Why silently go somewhere else when you're already talking to someone? You're not wasting someone's time when they're talking to people about things in the first place. It takes a second to say something you have the answer to already anyway.

 

Also, you never really addressed the Googling when it comes to this forum when no q/a exists here, unless you're implying that you do find it lazy and very disrespectful not to Google when there's no already existing question thread here.

 

Well, actually, it would be inconsistent if not, as there's no reason not to tell someone to Google it then, so I shouldn't be surprised if that's the answer.

[waffles]

To your "cut the chase", no.

I take that definition to be about someone in general rather than not using a certain amount of energy in a specific situation.

OED gives "Characterized by lack of effort or activity" for a specific situation to be called lazy, which comes to the same thing.

 

 

Applying that definition in the way you are, someone who chooses not to walk to the store is lazy. (Auto-reply to replies stating that driving is still energy - so is asking questions)

If the nearest store is ten miles away then that's unreasonable, of course, and if you're buying a lot then it's also unreasonable. If the store, however, is a hundred meters down the road and all you're buying is a bag of apples, yes, that's lazy. I think, in the context of "The question being asked is on the front page", that's an apt analogy here.

[Yori]

Ok, so by acknowledging that situations vary and you can't simply smack "Characterized by lack of effort or activity" to just any specific situation, you know that you can't just wave that in my face and go "Ha!"

 

Waffles, I guess I never had in mind that someone who saw the thread right on the front page was asking the question again. In that case, I think it's more effort to ask the question and wait for answers than to read the answers that are there.

 

I would call that senseless. Going through it in my mind, I think it would be some sort of impatience rather than trying to save effort, like.. wanting to grab something by making the thread vs reading already existing answers...

[Sands]

We're online, mate. Google is right there.

 

If it's a question that can be Googled? Yes, Google it. Like say, some error message you got. Often you'll find a lot of hits. And well, when you need to search forums themselves? Seach function. Everything exists there to make you finding the information so much more easier. Not using it is just plain lazy. If you use it and don't find what you were looking for, even if it exists? You're not being lazy there, just unlucky.

 

Are you seriously so dense you think people tell someone to Google something in conversations they hold face to face? I don't think you're really thinking this through here, you're redefining terms and using them how you please and how you see them, except everything someone else says is supposed to happen in every single possible way it could be used, even if it was absolutely idiotic to do so.

 

Unless of course, someone asked me a question I didn't know. Suggesting them to Google it then is what I do, because Google knows a lot of stuff I don't. Hell, I know I rather Google first before I ask a professional about anything, as then I can have as many different opinions to use as possible and know what my options will be, exactly.

[Yori]

Not sure what a hundred meters is, but I'd not like to walk to a store that was some turns and a long stretch of road away (15 minutes for me walking) when my car's there. That's just me CX. I have no compelling reason to walk that amount unless I'm trying to work out.

[Guest MegaBusta]

100m = 328 feet

 

Don't they teach how to do metric conversions in school?

[Yori]

We're online, mate. Google is right there.

 

If it's a question that can be Googled? Yes, Google it. Like say, some error message you got. Often you'll find a lot of hits. And well, when you need to search forums themselves? Seach function. Everything exists there to make you finding the information so much more easier. Not using it is just plain lazy. If you use it and don't find what you were looking for, even if it exists? You're not being lazy there, just unlucky.

 

Are you seriously so dense you think people tell someone to Google something in conversations they hold face to face? I don't think you're really thinking this through here, you're redefining terms and using them how you please and how you see them, except everything someone else says is supposed to happen in every single possible way it could be used, even if it was absolutely idiotic to do so.

 

Unless of course, someone asked me a question I didn't know. Suggesting them to Google it then is what I do, because Google knows a lot of stuff I don't. Hell, I know I rather Google first before I ask a professional about anything, as then I can have as many different opinions to use as possible and know what my options will be, exactly.

 

I never said that I think people tell someone to Google something in conversations they hold face to face, so no, I'm not fucking dense, sir.

 

That's sort of the point. If I said it was as unnatural as (yet another situation in which there is a monolith of people who say to Google it) it would kind of defeat the purpose of saying it. I was saying it would be as unnatural as [situation in which you wouldn't tell someone to Google] for me because I experiences online exchanges as having conversations too. And again, I haven't redefined anything. As for the rest of that paragraph, I don't know what it says.

 

What's your reasoning in saying they're simply unlucky? Wouldn't be "very disrespectful" and "wasting people's time" if they asked a question on here that didn't yet exist -on here- but was out there somewhere else via Google, just like in cases where "on here" doesn't apply and they have no chance at all of finding it on the same place (chats) and you tell them to Google it?

 

Of course, if they didn't find it on Google (after spending some time searching but not bypassing the amount of time it'd take for someone to answer, can't always search all those results), they'd have no choice but to ask here.

---

100m = 328 feet

 

Don't they teach how to do metric conversions in school?

 

Missing the point. I don't know what 328 feet is either. And don't even respond telling me what it is in inches. I virtually do not know what 100m is, period. No conversion could tell me.

 

Yes. That's right. You know when you read driving manuals (I hope you read yours before getting your license! ;) ) and they tell you "at so and so feet, do X?" Well, I just have to go with what I see is reasonable. (Sometimes what I see is reasonable turns out to be much closer than what I would guess ___ feet/yards/meters looks like! Interesting.) Because I don't know what the hell 250 feet is, apparently. With adults, I've gotten feet, yards, etc estimates wrong, over and over.

[waffles]

Ok, so by acknowledging that situations vary and you can't simply smack "Characterized by lack of effort or activity" to just any specific situation, you know that you can't just wave that in my face and go "Ha!"

Use your common sense, man. That's another thing that some of the stupid question askers seem to lack. We're on the internet and searching an FAQ, scanning through a few pages of Q&A or even reading a few guides - you know, things that newcomers should be doing even if they didn't have questions - is never as much effort as walking a long distance.

 

 

Waffles, I guess I never had in mind that someone who saw the thread right on the front page was asking the question again. In that case, I think it's more effort to ask the question and wait for answers than to read the answers that are there.

 

I would call that senseless. Going through it in my mind, I think it would be some sort of impatience rather than trying to save effort, like.. wanting to grab something by making the thread vs reading already existing answers...

Well, I agree with 'senseless'. I can't see 'impatient' though, because pre-existing answers are certainly instant. And I guess they didn't really see it, because in fact they just didn't look, I suspect. Anyway, I think it should be fair enough to say that certain obvious/stupid questions are pretty equivalent to that, like "How do I tulpa". It might help if the FAQ were a bit more visible but you know, it all comes to the same thing: people either don't think about or are too lazy to do their own research before asking questions.

 

 

Not sure what a hundred meters is, but I'd not like to walk to a store that was some turns and a long stretch of road away (15 minutes for me walking) when my car's there. That's just me CX. I have no compelling reason to walk that amount unless I'm trying to work out.

Haha, alright. You could have saved yourself some embarrassment by looking up what 100 meters is instead of admitting to us that you didn't know. I had a suspicion that you were American as soon as you compared driving to walking and made it quite clear that you didn't consider it lazy, but know I know beyond all doubt.

 

EDIT: it seems you don't know what 300 feet is either. In that case, you're beyond saving. Besides, if you used your head you'd realise that it was in fact not comparable to 15 minutes' walking, and thus understand my point. The precise distance doesn't matter, does it?