Frank said:
I take your point, but sometimes I come across a program which I have not
tried, or possibly have no interest in, but which I judge from other posts
would be of interest to other members. In such cases I expect some element
of curiosity to cause the reader to click the link, although in most cases I
include a quote from the site describing the program. Everyone should be
free to post as they think appropriate although I agree that a link is
essential, but I regard the original post in this link to be pompous and
dictatorial. I hope this does not fan the flames!!! Regards.
Frank Bohan
¶ Men are like copiers: You need them for reproduction, but that's about
it.
Frank, I appreciate your reply.
The issue is, in part, that the posts that consist of URLs-only add up
to what can be an accumulated hassle for the reader.
Let's not get into flaming here, but I hope, a solution.
If posts like this (what I'm calling "grunts") were once per day or so,
it would be OK. But when there are a whole bunch like this, it gets real
tedious on the other end. It takes a slight effort to visualize the guy
at the other end who is actually reading the post, and that's what I'm
asking for -- that slight additional mental effort to connect with the
reader.
Many of us are curious or we wouldn't be here for long. But it gets to
be a slog when too many posters expect us to be "curious." Or to be the
recipient of the attitude, "Hey, I did my part in posting the link; It's
your job to figure it out." Yeah, right.
I've worked in usability, and I often see user-centered things that many
software professionals (especially coders) overlook. So, please consider
my contribution about the usability of posts and this great board in
general.
Please understand that the reality is that many people who write
programs are poor communicators; they can actually put up entire sites
and not describe their programs at all! Some descriptions, too, are
written in a technospeak that's sufficient to the originator and not
many other people. Ge writes good code; he does not give good doc.
That's why the lack of any descriptive matter can be so tedious. I go to
linked sites and can't get a clue about what the programs do. This has
happened quite a bit. And, man, I'm good at this!
We can't expect coders, especially people who contribute their effort to
the rest of us, to always be good documenters of their creations -- and
some of them are truly wonderful, don't you agree? So, we share our
experiences on this board and between us, we figure out how to work the
things.
Answering into an existing thread, especially a question, with a URL
might be OK if it's a solution, but some sort of explanation would be
appreciated. How about:
"I haven't tried this." (This indicates that you're not endorsing it.
It's a clear signal.)
"I've used this for years and it's great." (An endorsement)
"This program isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it actually
does what you need." (Not an endorsement, but gives some guidance.)
"Works great, but it's spyware."
"It'll take some work to figure this out. It's been safe for me and a
really good program." (Guidance and endorsement.)
This approach will go a long way around here. Agreed?
Richard
