3 ms·

I think there is a tension between the user's desire for simplicity and the underlying complexity of the data involved. So the user thinks: "I want to know how

I think there is a tension between the user's desire for simplicity and the underlying complexity of the data involved. So the user thinks: "I want to know how to fix X". But it's never really what they want to know. It's always something different. This is the same problem software development teams face when asked to fix something. Simply because you can state it in a sentence does not mean you are communicating to me all I need to know to help you.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
Very much so. This problem only gets bigger as people get more technically sophisticated. Most people are satisficers (when the first idea pops up that could even remotely fix the problem they stop thinking about more solutions) and they tend to force that on others as well. It's rare for people to be able step back and state their problem in a pure form, instead people like to state their problem in the form of an unimplemented solution (thinking that makes it easier). Developers who aren't skilled in recognizing or dealing with this sort of thing are at a significant disadvantage. If you naively implement all of the random satisficed solutions people submit to you as "problems" you end up with an incoherent and conflicting mess.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Agreed. From painful experience I'm happier with the idea of providing a reading list to somebody than simply trying to come up with some kind of immediate quick answer to a loosely-worded question. A book author sets the table: he provides background, vocabulary help, and a context. Inside of all of that, he can discuss the issue from multiple angles and provide advice. There's depth: you take time to understand where the author is coming from. In return he provides you in-depth advice in the area you are interested in. More than that: good authors teach you how to think about solving problems in a particular area. Instead of that format, on the net we have hit-and-run McDonalds sagacity. Questioners don't have time for a book. They have some random problem and Google is their friend. As a responder, I'm just some schmuck on the internet, busy doing other things and mostly distracted. I'm taking all of 30 seconds to guess what the person's problem might be, then fitting it all into some random mood and context I brought along with me. No matter how smart I am, it's just not the same. It's useful at times, no doubt, but it's not the same. I don't think the social networking paradigm translates over well to advice-giving. Heck, even with book authors I find that the quality varies quite a bit, and that's folks that take months to address an issue. Again, I'm not saying these sites aren't valuable: I use them all the time. I just think we may put too much stock into the first returns from a Google or SO search. Trying to add structure to the process isn't going to necessarily make it better. If voting and friends work for sharing jokes and links, and they work for forming a community, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are the bedrock for creating a valuable structure to answer repeat questions. When we discuss this we might be like the guy who has a hammer and can do anything -- as long as all the problems are nails. (In other words we know the answer is going to be a tweet or a quick reply reused from a previous question, we just are trying to figure out how big of a hammer/format/magic we need to make it all work)
macrael 16y ago
The frist question in response to a question is almost always "What are you trying to do". Can you capitalize on that need for context in some way?

InclinedPlane 16y ago

Very much so. This problem only gets bigger as people get more technically sophisticated. Most people are satisficers (when the first idea pops up that could even remotely fix the problem they stop thinking about more solutions) and they tend to force that on others as well. It's rare for people to be able step back and state their problem in a pure form, instead people like to state their problem in the form of an unimplemented solution (thinking that makes it easier). Developers who aren't skilled in recognizing or dealing with this sort of thing are at a significant disadvantage. If you naively implement all of the random satisficed solutions people submit to you as "problems" you end up with an incoherent and conflicting mess.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Agreed. From painful experience I'm happier with the idea of providing a reading list to somebody than simply trying to come up with some kind of immediate quick answer to a loosely-worded question. A book author sets the table: he provides background, vocabulary help, and a context. Inside of all of that, he can discuss the issue from multiple angles and provide advice. There's depth: you take time to understand where the author is coming from. In return he provides you in-depth advice in the area you are interested in. More than that: good authors teach you how to think about solving problems in a particular area. Instead of that format, on the net we have hit-and-run McDonalds sagacity. Questioners don't have time for a book. They have some random problem and Google is their friend. As a responder, I'm just some schmuck on the internet, busy doing other things and mostly distracted. I'm taking all of 30 seconds to guess what the person's problem might be, then fitting it all into some random mood and context I brought along with me. No matter how smart I am, it's just not the same. It's useful at times, no doubt, but it's not the same. I don't think the social networking paradigm translates over well to advice-giving. Heck, even with book authors I find that the quality varies quite a bit, and that's folks that take months to address an issue. Again, I'm not saying these sites aren't valuable: I use them all the time. I just think we may put too much stock into the first returns from a Google or SO search. Trying to add structure to the process isn't going to necessarily make it better. If voting and friends work for sharing jokes and links, and they work for forming a community, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are the bedrock for creating a valuable structure to answer repeat questions. When we discuss this we might be like the guy who has a hammer and can do anything -- as long as all the problems are nails. (In other words we know the answer is going to be a tweet or a quick reply reused from a previous question, we just are trying to figure out how big of a hammer/format/magic we need to make it all work)

macrael 16y ago

The frist question in response to a question is almost always "What are you trying to do". Can you capitalize on that need for context in some way?