davidmich’s threads have annoyed me for a while, but I haven’t been able to put my finger on why. I came close to pitting myself for not being able to just let it go, but today I had a breakthrough.
Over 100 threads started in GQ in this year alone, and none of them* have any context, just a question. Occasionally there’s a mention of “according to several books”, “I read on different websites that …”, “I’ve heard …”, but never a “I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around this because” or “I’m writing a really weird book that contains lots of facts on random subjects on which I’m anything but an expert.”
If you’re going to continue using the SDMB to make up for your shortcommings as a researcher, davidmich, I think you owe us some context. And if it exists in some post way back, I think you owe us to repeat it once and again.
*based on controlling a random selection of this years posts.
I disagree. He has questions, he posts them in General Questions, people respond. His questions are generally interesting, and some have generated some good discussions. I don’t think a poster owes context in GQ.
Nor is it fair to say he has poor research skills. That could be said of anyone who posts in GQ.
This. Quite often the answers to such questions given in the first Google hits present simplified views of the issue or outright myths. A thread where people from various backgrounds examine the problem from different angles can be very enlightening.
And posting to online discussion boards is research.
I agree with the OP, that some context for the questions would be nice. And not just to satisfy my curiosity, although that is one reason. And in some cases, it can be helpful to understand what triggered the question.
And I’ve always thought that participation in the board should be a two-way street. So that if you expect people to respond to your thread, you should reply to threads started by others. So I’m slightly annoyed by a few people who only come here to ask questions but don’t stick around and talk to others. In general, I don’t reply to such people.
Context is nice, but not necessary when asking questions. The big advantage of answers in GQ is context. That’s what makes the forum so much more valuable than Wiki/Google/your mom.
Example from the front page right now: Johnny L.A. asks “What’s a short-handled shovel?” He gives a little context. The answers elaborate on history, folklore, leverage, song-writing and excavation. Much more and more interesting information than Google could ever give.
Keep on asking questions, david. That’s what we’re here for.
He certainly has a unique posting style, and his questions can be a weird blend of the seemingly sophisticated and the naive, but they are often interesting questions, and he is very polite. I do get a slightly weird vibe from him, but I don’t really think he deserves to be in The Pit.
There might be some justification for this in conversational forums like MPSIMS and IMHO, but there’s no reason why it should apply to GQ. davidmich does provide feedback and clarifications in his own threads, which is more than a lot of posters do. And frankly, there are all too many posters who post to GQ threads just to get their two cents in, not because they have any particular information or knowledge on the subject. More often than not they just post misinformation or muddy the waters, forcing other posters to clean up the mess they made.
This is why I’m more comfortable in the Pit than GQ: You people are ballbusters. “That question is not good enough to be asked here. Do go away,” indeed! :eek:
I don’t have a problem with it, exactly, but he does ask a pretty wide variety of questions, many of which can be pretty easily answered by Google or something.
