Re: [cobalt-users] Let's get this over with...

[Joe Kerns <jkerns@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----------------------------------
> Try searching for '~user' or any other common UNIX construction in the
> archives--you can't--instead you get hits on 'user' because the search
> engine ignores many specials. As I am sure you all know, there is an awfully
> large difference between '~user' and 'user'. This deficiency should alone
> be the death knell of ht:dig, the current engine.

Yep, the engine kinda sucks, but I'll bet there are less searches done than simple questions asked of the list
for the millionth time.

> Let's consider the overall objective:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Put yourself in the mindset of a cobalt user, you:

I'm a cobalt user, I am automatically in that mindset. I started out adminning Cobalt boxes, but that doesn't
mean I can't decide to actually learn what is going on rather than just sending off an email each time I am
faced with a new dilemma...that is prolly not such a new dilemma, if I would take a few minutes to look
around...there are some pretty simple questions that are pretty simply answered if people would just take the
time to look in the archives.

<snipped throughout>

> Personally, my job description does not include keeping an archive of
> everything ever posted to the Cobalt Lists.

me either...thats what the archives are for...

> Call me a specifist, but I only want the answers to my questions and those answers ought to
> live on Cobalt's disks within no more than 3 clicks and a little
> typing from my browser.

i like it...

> Think about it--the list membership is only going to go up (and in
> some sort of direct proportion to the annual sales of Cobalt).
>
> As admins (or admins-in-training, or non-admins with a penchant for
> the bleeding edge) we should be more sensitive to this issue.

Actually, tired of doling out the same advice many experienced users just leave. I have seen quite a few come
and go. And I spend time away myself, altho I'm no guru...

> 2)  Lurking as an in vitro learning tool requires an eventual
> encounter with an FAQ. These netiquette violations can be reduced
> with the regular FAQ posting found in most serious newsgroups. As I
> see it, "no FAQ=no foul", so stop throwing rocks at each other--you
> sound like a bunch of undersexed unix.

actually, I just got laid about 30 minutes ago, and I still think you should search the archives, you shouldn't
post in HTML email, etc....I guess I don't care how I sound to those that have no concept of netiquette, or a
real desire to figure something out rather than a quick fix...

> some innocent netiquette faux pas, and still comes up
> empty-handed is a complete INDICTMENT of the current system.

nuh-huh...no way. there is no "innocent netiquette faux pas".

> and good karma for all.

I like good karma.

This has been said before. There needs to be a welcome email when someone signs up for the list describing the
etiquette, how to search the archives, etc.

There are some very talented people that have come and gone because they got tired of the same questions, no
one searching the archives, HTML email, etc. etc.

Joe