5 ms·

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ESR did it better, imho :-)

mooreds 9y ago
That is a classic. I re-read it every few years, and if we all spent the time to ask smart questions in every sphere of our lives, we'd all be better off. It's hard to do though, because it demands we expect more of ourselves. Sometimes it's easy to just post a question to the ether than to do the hard work of investigation/research needed to ask a smart one.
freedomben 9y ago
He is indeed the master. Much of his advice is timeless. I find myself going back to things every so often. Especially the Eric Conspiracy, which most certainly does not exist. http://www.catb.org/esr/ecsl/ http://www.catb.org/esr/ecsl/
JoshTriplett 9y ago
There's some marginally useful content buried in that, but wrapped in a pervasive and unpleasant position of "the person you're asking is way more important than you, lowly questioner", and many excuses attempting to justify elitism. I much prefer Julia Evans: https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ and https://jvns.ca/blog/answer-questions-well/ https://jvns.ca/blog/answer-questions-well/
- jerkstate 9y ago
  I had never seen Julia Evans' writing on the topic but have read ESR's many times. It looks like Evans' guide is mostly geared towards being considerate of the other person and ESR's is mostly geared towards collecting the appropriate information beforehand and phrasing the question the right way. Both are extremely important for effective question asking. Regarding the "lowly questioner" dynamic, look at it this way: if you're asking someone a question about their software, you're seeking to extract time from someone in order to extract value from something that they created. Be humble.
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    > It looks like Evans' guide is mostly geared towards being considerate of the other person and ESR's is mostly geared towards collecting the appropriate information beforehand and phrasing the question the right way. https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ covers both of those topics in detail, in my opinion.
- taneq 9y ago
  > "the person you're asking is way more important than you, lowly questioner" I don't think it's saying that. It's just saying "the person you're asking owes you nothing, is probably very busy at best, and may be a self-important jerk at worst, this is probably the most effective way to ask them for help."
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    It also, in multiple places, seems to say "but they're not really a self-important jerk, they're just defensive of their time". And in general, it defends elitism and excuses unpleasant behavior. (There's nothing wrong with being defensive of your time. There's something very wrong with being a jerk about it.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  I'd written a reply to someone commenting on the description of "elitism", but that comment was deleted. So, instead, here's a partial list of issues (both elitist and otherwise), and reasons to not link to or advocate that particular document. Quoting directly from the document: > you are one of the idiots we are talking about > leave us alone and everybody will be happier > What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to > We call people like this “losers” (and for historical reasons we sometimes spell it “lusers”). > J. Random Hacker is quite likely to reply with a uselessly literal answer while thinking “Stupid question...”, and hoping the experience of getting what you asked for rather than what you needed will teach you a lesson. > Stupid: > we can't be bothered > will make you come off like a giggly teenage girl, which is not generally a good idea unless you are more interested in sex than answers The entire section entitled "RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up", especially things like: > You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness. > The same place I'd find it, fool > J. Random Hacker's response to this is likely to be “Right. Do you need burping and diapering, too?” > While muttering RTFM is sometimes justified (no, it isn't) - Terms like "ruthless" used as praise. - Numerous attempts to praise lack of basic decency and excuse bad behavior in the community. - A pervasive "us" and "you" approach to othering the lowly petitioner, despite claiming to want to welcome them. The above is a partial list of reasons why not to recommend that particular document, and why to seek out and recommend better ones. I've seen people recommend this particular document while simultaneously attempting to excuse it; better would be to write it off as a hopeless bit of elitist historical interest, recommend better documents that already exist, and update any such documents to include any useful information that they might lack.
  - lwhalen 9y ago
    I can handle a bit of rough and tumble no-nonsense language, personally. I'd like to think most folks attempting to build/repair/maintain systems built by other people can too. Disregarding this document because it's not hand-holding enough would be, IMHO, throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
    - 9y ago
asjo 9y ago
I like Simon Tatham's "How to Report Bugs Effectively" - https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html

mooreds 9y ago

That is a classic. I re-read it every few years, and if we all spent the time to ask smart questions in every sphere of our lives, we'd all be better off. It's hard to do though, because it demands we expect more of ourselves. Sometimes it's easy to just post a question to the ether than to do the hard work of investigation/research needed to ask a smart one.

freedomben 9y ago

He is indeed the master. Much of his advice is timeless. I find myself going back to things every so often. Especially the Eric Conspiracy, which most certainly does not exist. http://www.catb.org/esr/ecsl/ http://www.catb.org/esr/ecsl/

JoshTriplett 9y ago

There's some marginally useful content buried in that, but wrapped in a pervasive and unpleasant position of "the person you're asking is way more important than you, lowly questioner", and many excuses attempting to justify elitism. I much prefer Julia Evans: https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ and https://jvns.ca/blog/answer-questions-well/ https://jvns.ca/blog/answer-questions-well/

jerkstate 9y ago
I had never seen Julia Evans' writing on the topic but have read ESR's many times. It looks like Evans' guide is mostly geared towards being considerate of the other person and ESR's is mostly geared towards collecting the appropriate information beforehand and phrasing the question the right way. Both are extremely important for effective question asking. Regarding the "lowly questioner" dynamic, look at it this way: if you're asking someone a question about their software, you're seeking to extract time from someone in order to extract value from something that they created. Be humble.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  > It looks like Evans' guide is mostly geared towards being considerate of the other person and ESR's is mostly geared towards collecting the appropriate information beforehand and phrasing the question the right way. https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ https://jvns.ca/blog/good-questions/ covers both of those topics in detail, in my opinion.
taneq 9y ago
> "the person you're asking is way more important than you, lowly questioner" I don't think it's saying that. It's just saying "the person you're asking owes you nothing, is probably very busy at best, and may be a self-important jerk at worst, this is probably the most effective way to ask them for help."
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  It also, in multiple places, seems to say "but they're not really a self-important jerk, they're just defensive of their time". And in general, it defends elitism and excuses unpleasant behavior. (There's nothing wrong with being defensive of your time. There's something very wrong with being a jerk about it.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 9y ago
I'd written a reply to someone commenting on the description of "elitism", but that comment was deleted. So, instead, here's a partial list of issues (both elitist and otherwise), and reasons to not link to or advocate that particular document. Quoting directly from the document: > you are one of the idiots we are talking about > leave us alone and everybody will be happier > What we are, unapologetically, is hostile to > We call people like this “losers” (and for historical reasons we sometimes spell it “lusers”). > J. Random Hacker is quite likely to reply with a uselessly literal answer while thinking “Stupid question...”, and hoping the experience of getting what you asked for rather than what you needed will teach you a lesson. > Stupid: > we can't be bothered > will make you come off like a giggly teenage girl, which is not generally a good idea unless you are more interested in sex than answers The entire section entitled "RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up", especially things like: > You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness. > The same place I'd find it, fool > J. Random Hacker's response to this is likely to be “Right. Do you need burping and diapering, too?” > While muttering RTFM is sometimes justified (no, it isn't) - Terms like "ruthless" used as praise. - Numerous attempts to praise lack of basic decency and excuse bad behavior in the community. - A pervasive "us" and "you" approach to othering the lowly petitioner, despite claiming to want to welcome them. The above is a partial list of reasons why not to recommend that particular document, and why to seek out and recommend better ones. I've seen people recommend this particular document while simultaneously attempting to excuse it; better would be to write it off as a hopeless bit of elitist historical interest, recommend better documents that already exist, and update any such documents to include any useful information that they might lack.
- lwhalen 9y ago
  I can handle a bit of rough and tumble no-nonsense language, personally. I'd like to think most folks attempting to build/repair/maintain systems built by other people can too. Disregarding this document because it's not hand-holding enough would be, IMHO, throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
  - 9y ago

asjo 9y ago

I like Simon Tatham's "How to Report Bugs Effectively" - https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html