3 ms·

If you find what I'm saying specious and pseudo-reasoning. perhaps you could outline specifically which arguments you find unconvincing and why; I'm aware that

by mst 17y ago

If you find what I'm saying specious and pseudo-reasoning. perhaps you could outline specifically which arguments you find unconvincing and why; I'm aware that what I have here is very much a working hypothesis backed up only by anecdata, but I thought it was a reasonably consistent hypothesis and any holes you can poke in it would be very welcome.

jrockway 17y ago
YOU USED ALL CAPS, DUMBASS!!!! ;)
houseabsolute 17y ago
Thanks for replying. I'm not really an IRC person, but I find that the best online communities are ones in which real names and adherence to real life social norms are encouraged. You're a rare person if you would say what you did to the newbie in your example in real life. Personally, I feel it would be just as good if the conversation went this way: newbie: I'm trying to parse out the td tags in this HTML and I can't get the regexp right expert: Please don't parse HTML with regexps - try HTML::TableExtract. newbie: my regexp is /<td>(.*)</ but it doesn't work mst: newbie: You can't use regexps to parse HTML. Look at this module: ... Now we've answered you twice. If you ask again, you'll be muted for a few minutes. Continued persistence on the part of the newbie should be met the same way you would in real life. Tell him if he keeps bothering you, you'll uninvite him from your club, and then follow through. The community's purpose is not to educate outsiders who don't wish to receive an education, but for the enrichment of people who will participate as equals. Establishing a norm of unpleasantness, even on the periphery, for the sake of a dubious chance at helping out is not a tradeoff I'd make.
- mst 17y ago
  The next line in that conversation is: newbie: WTF. But I just wanted help with my regexp! Quit being a nazi! You have no right to ban me I'm just trying to ask a question! or them quitting immediately. Or at least, it has usually been one of the two in my experience. But I'm not going to claim that means the technique doesn't work; just that it hasn't, for me, so far. I should probably experiment more with it but I suspect it will, oddly, come across far more heavy handed than a bout of profanity.
  - dagw 17y ago
    if you took a few seconds to explain why regexp is the wrong solution rather than just saying "don't use it", I'm sure the user would not only leave a lot more enlightened, but would also stop asking the same question.
    - mst 17y ago
      If only that were actually true. Well, no, a lot of the time it does work, and I never say a word or I'm the one doing the explaining. The point of the example is that there's a fairly common pattern where people don't listen, don't become enlightened, and don't stop asking the same question because they've managed to get tunnel vision through staring at their non-working code for too long. At which point a short sharp verbal slap upside the head often serves to dislodge the cobwebs, at which point they start thinking again, read the explanation properly and become enlightened.
Daniel_Newby 17y ago
What's wrong in your example is that you supply no reasons to pay attention to you, then fly into a rage when you are not paid attention to. A better way would look something like this: Grasshopper: I'm trying to parse out the td tags in this HTML and I can't get the regexp right Master: HTML allows many variations. Making a regex to handle all possibilities is too hard. Master: Instead use HTML::TableExtract. You can learn to use it faster than you fix all the tricky problems in a regex.
- mst 17y ago
  Sure. And in the IRC channel where that sort of question is common, we have a factoid that points this out, politely, with plenty of links. However, your point that the example sucks is good; I've fleshed it out somewhat (and still consider it representative of what I'm attempting to describe)
  - Daniel_Newby 17y ago
    That's more reasonable. Still, why do so many seekers-of-wisdom do that? Is it fear of the documentation, which can be pretty intimidating for a novice? Are they truly, seriously lazy gold brickers? Are they just thick? If it is the first, what they need is reassurance and a very simple, unintimidating example. I wonder if there is a market for teaching chatbots? They'd have a hard time being worse than the endless "tutorials" on the web.
    - mst 17y ago
      "factoid" - one of our best tactics for avoiding non-constructive grumpiness has been to teach the chatbot descriptive but firm responses to some of the most common mistakes. In a lot of cases, as I note elsethread, I think it's often that they've been locked into tunnel vision over the "solution" they're currently attempting - they have a serious case of XY problem but their self-made blinkers prevent them seeing that. A much shorter version of this drama gets played out on technical channels when one of us goes "hmm, why isn't this working?", somebody else goes "wtf are you doing that for?" and the first one goes ".... oh, FFS, because I'm an idiot". But it takes practice to be that in tune with your inner idiot.

by mst 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago

YOU USED ALL CAPS, DUMBASS!!!! ;)

houseabsolute 17y ago

Thanks for replying. I'm not really an IRC person, but I find that the best online communities are ones in which real names and adherence to real life social norms are encouraged. You're a rare person if you would say what you did to the newbie in your example in real life. Personally, I feel it would be just as good if the conversation went this way: newbie: I'm trying to parse out the td tags in this HTML and I can't get the regexp right expert: Please don't parse HTML with regexps - try HTML::TableExtract. newbie: my regexp is /<td>(.*)</ but it doesn't work mst: newbie: You can't use regexps to parse HTML. Look at this module: ... Now we've answered you twice. If you ask again, you'll be muted for a few minutes. Continued persistence on the part of the newbie should be met the same way you would in real life. Tell him if he keeps bothering you, you'll uninvite him from your club, and then follow through. The community's purpose is not to educate outsiders who don't wish to receive an education, but for the enrichment of people who will participate as equals. Establishing a norm of unpleasantness, even on the periphery, for the sake of a dubious chance at helping out is not a tradeoff I'd make.

mst 17y ago
The next line in that conversation is: newbie: WTF. But I just wanted help with my regexp! Quit being a nazi! You have no right to ban me I'm just trying to ask a question! or them quitting immediately. Or at least, it has usually been one of the two in my experience. But I'm not going to claim that means the technique doesn't work; just that it hasn't, for me, so far. I should probably experiment more with it but I suspect it will, oddly, come across far more heavy handed than a bout of profanity.
- dagw 17y ago
  if you took a few seconds to explain why regexp is the wrong solution rather than just saying "don't use it", I'm sure the user would not only leave a lot more enlightened, but would also stop asking the same question.
  - mst 17y ago
    If only that were actually true. Well, no, a lot of the time it does work, and I never say a word or I'm the one doing the explaining. The point of the example is that there's a fairly common pattern where people don't listen, don't become enlightened, and don't stop asking the same question because they've managed to get tunnel vision through staring at their non-working code for too long. At which point a short sharp verbal slap upside the head often serves to dislodge the cobwebs, at which point they start thinking again, read the explanation properly and become enlightened.

Daniel_Newby 17y ago

What's wrong in your example is that you supply no reasons to pay attention to you, then fly into a rage when you are not paid attention to. A better way would look something like this: Grasshopper: I'm trying to parse out the td tags in this HTML and I can't get the regexp right Master: HTML allows many variations. Making a regex to handle all possibilities is too hard. Master: Instead use HTML::TableExtract. You can learn to use it faster than you fix all the tricky problems in a regex.

mst 17y ago
Sure. And in the IRC channel where that sort of question is common, we have a factoid that points this out, politely, with plenty of links. However, your point that the example sucks is good; I've fleshed it out somewhat (and still consider it representative of what I'm attempting to describe)
- Daniel_Newby 17y ago
  That's more reasonable. Still, why do so many seekers-of-wisdom do that? Is it fear of the documentation, which can be pretty intimidating for a novice? Are they truly, seriously lazy gold brickers? Are they just thick? If it is the first, what they need is reassurance and a very simple, unintimidating example. I wonder if there is a market for teaching chatbots? They'd have a hard time being worse than the endless "tutorials" on the web.
  - mst 17y ago
    "factoid" - one of our best tactics for avoiding non-constructive grumpiness has been to teach the chatbot descriptive but firm responses to some of the most common mistakes. In a lot of cases, as I note elsethread, I think it's often that they've been locked into tunnel vision over the "solution" they're currently attempting - they have a serious case of XY problem but their self-made blinkers prevent them seeing that. A much shorter version of this drama gets played out on technical channels when one of us goes "hmm, why isn't this working?", somebody else goes "wtf are you doing that for?" and the first one goes ".... oh, FFS, because I'm an idiot". But it takes practice to be that in tune with your inner idiot.