Question-sites are ruining Google-searches!
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I think the point is that if it is so easy as responsible people who understand how search engines work we should not just give the snide answer "Google it", but also answer it.
..there's quite some "questions" out there that are merely born out of lazyness. The only alternative I could use here besides "Google it" is "hire a programmer". Should I write a complete course in each answer, duplicating the manual? ..and yes, you'll often find it near questions where the TS expects a copy/paste answer, readily customized for his problem. Whois the
Lazy<T>then? Yes, RTFM does sound so much better :suss:Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Especially if you get their attention: RTFM Normally works for me... :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Also, providing links are the lazy answer. Links should be used for referencing, not the actual answer (unless this site has it).
But what if there is no 'actual answer', if the question asked so vague, the response so wide, when there are countless articles already written? If you can persuade someone to search out information that already exists they can get to it a lot quicker than if they have to wait for someone else to write it all again. Ask a definite question, get a definite answer, if you ask a vague question then you can only hope for a vague answer.
chriselst wrote:
But what if there is no 'actual answer', if the question asked so vague, the response so wide, when there are countless articles already written?
Then it is a poor question and should be rated as such. Seems counter productive to suggest them to "Google it" at that point. A better alternative would be to suggest reading material that would help them narrow their question down. In such a case it is important to be clear that the question is in fact not understood and you are trying to help them formulate a better question.
chriselst wrote:
If you can persuade someone to search out information that already exists they can get to it a lot quicker than if they have to wait for someone else to write it all again.
And where is it written that the quickest way is the best way? I understand there are lazy people out there... But it seems it is in fact more difficult to set up a CP account and post the question here than it is to google it. So it seems more likely that the person in fact is not familiar with search engines (not likely) or is not very good at using them (more likely). Thus telling them to "google it" is a poor answer since they lack the skills. On top of that, as the OP is ranting about it in fact breaks google. You have added to the dead links for that "noob question".
chriselst wrote:
Ask a definite question, get a definite answer, if you ask a vague question then you can only hope for a vague answer.
I agree completely. In some cases that is in fact what a person wants (this is often true around design principles). I am not sure how this relates to "Google it" being a proper answer though. It seems a vague question would fail with a google query.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
I really don't get why that is a snide answer. I often come across questions where that is the obvious answer
I seriously doubt that the answer to any question asked here is in fact "Google it". Google is a means to find an answer. 1 out of many. They chose to come here. Be honored you are part of that community and they are asking it (the community you are part of). If not, then best not answer, because as I said "Google it" is not an answer.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
and when I do the search it comes up with plenty of useful links. I also see this when people say "I have seached everywhere...", and yet they obviously have not, as even just pasting their full
question into Google comes up with useful links.I consider myself a pretty savy "googler". Someone states a problem and I can dig through various queries to find an answer. Usually. With that, I have also observed those that are not. Given a simple problem that a traditional internet user could find with a query and result on the first hit, there are those that can not pull it off. Someone their words are at a loss when it comes to running a query.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
The fact is that Google, whatever its failings, is a brilliant tool for finding information, and teaching people how to use it properly will also help to teach then how to do some basic research for themselves
If you are in fact teaching them how to properly use it then great. It would still be better for you to provide the actual answer though for the sake of google else the new posted question of "How to BLAH BLAH" now points to a thread that as the answer has "Google it". Your a programmer. You know what recursion is. Don't break google :)
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It would really help if certain educational establishments made the effort to teach their students how to use it, before sending them off on their first assignment.
This could be in fact do to google themselves. When I was in school google did not exist. Each library had its own way to find things. When computers finally came along we could there was some sanity but you still had to know the black art of searches. Most of those search engines required a lot of knowledge about how the queries worked. Google now is a black box that you just ty
-
How can I solve this problem?[^]: Solution 1.
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
How can I solve this problem?[^]: Solution 1.
Do as I say, not as I do ;) I never said I am not a google breaking culprit. I try not to, but we all have those days. But in the end we must take responsibility that we are breaking the search engines. Also, you should notice that while I did give a link to LMGTFY and the found result at SO, I did in fact also provide the answer in the solution I posted. Thus, the next lazy programmer that googles it has the potential to find that QA and it will be valid. If however I just left the links it would not be valid (links go dead, and a link to a live query is most certainly not valid as it can change results)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
I have gone to the step of blocking sites like "Stackexchange" for my searches on programming references and tutorials, because their helpfulness is minimal. I usually want some information about something I haven't worked with before in C#, (esoteria in .net, or some weird errors). I Google it and I get answers that links to dead sites or removed articles, (that's named perfectly, and all the up-votes and thank-yous to indicate that this was once exactly what you wanted), or there are 100 comments/answers about how stupid a "noob question" it is or "Google it". I sometimes ask a question on a forum or this site, (I like this site BTW, though "stupid, noob question", or a question has been removed for being "unhelpful", has happened a few times), now when I get a "Google it" response and the above scenario occurs, (I get results of others having had the same question and the same retarded "Google it" response), I just wanna kill somebody. I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches. I can see an infinite loop of "Google it" occurring at some point in the near future! Thank you for reading my rant ;-) -Frank
Frank Reidar Haugen wrote:
I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches
What sort of site would then provide the answer for the esoteric items that you are looking for? Very likely won't be the sites that one might suppose - the documentation for the application/library/etc because those are unlikely to document it.
-
I think the point is that if it is so easy as responsible people who understand how search engines work we should not just give the snide answer "Google it", but also answer it. You can leave a snide remark, but not answering it leaves the thread there. This happens again and again. And eventually the first couple pages of a google search are "noobs" asking an easy question and getting no answer. In some cases the person very well did google it and found nothing on the first page of the search. So they posted a new question and get the some result as an answer "Google it". But they did... ANd now those that answered just added to the problem. I get what you are saying. But it seems that those lazy folks exist on the front of this problem. After that, it may not be laziness but a broken system (search results in "google it" answers and no programmer willing to properly answer it). Maybe google needs to tweak their algorithm to omit "Google it" hits :)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
The fact is... everyone here is making a point and being right in his/her opinion. The most important point is: There are way much lazy people than legitimate enquirers asking things as it should be asked and having really problems to solve something. It is a pity, that those few get the tipical answer, I agree with you. But on the other hand... and taking as example two answers of mine reflecting the other position defended by Richard. How can I represent weighted graph in scheme with alist?[^] best way to design web Form to Insert,Update, Delete[^] I say "google it", but giving some of the links I firstly checked that might be usefull. One of them was even downvoted (I don't give a sh.. though), what I want to point out is: The make the question "how do I xxxxxx" with very few content as Richard said. One of them didn't came back or posted anything else, the other at least told "Thanks" but added "but I use...." because the answer was not matching the problem, then why don't describe the problem better? I even told him how to edit and add content, but nothing happened, the only edition was mine to add his "explanation". He didn't bothered to say anything else. And those two examples are still in the "good" part of the group described by Richard. As I said, I agree that "rights are paying for sinners" and this is not fair, but... if the user describes What have been tried?[^] correctly (i.e. finding info in google and put some examples of bad links) and describe the situation correctly, then that user won't take a "google it" answer
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Especially if you get their attention: RTFM Normally works for me... :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
Lazy question: And... what does it means? :-O :-O Debate answer: Oh... oncle google says... "read the fucking manual" :cool::cool: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
How can I solve this problem?[^]: Solution 1.
Do as I say, not as I do ;) I never said I am not a google breaking culprit. I try not to, but we all have those days. But in the end we must take responsibility that we are breaking the search engines. Also, you should notice that while I did give a link to LMGTFY and the found result at SO, I did in fact also provide the answer in the solution I posted. Thus, the next lazy programmer that googles it has the potential to find that QA and it will be valid. If however I just left the links it would not be valid (links go dead, and a link to a live query is most certainly not valid as it can change results)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
In that case it was a "short" answer. Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Lazy question: And... what does it means? :-O :-O Debate answer: Oh... oncle google says... "read the fucking manual" :cool::cool: ;P ;P :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
:-D Dat's De Bunny! :laugh:
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
-
In that case it was a "short" answer. Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
In that case it was a "short" answer.
Have a look the links in my answer to you below to see the other side.We can not fix the lazy programmer nor can we make them come back. For all we know they realized they were not cut out for it (and that is fine). We can however make this site better. In the QA you referenced that is in fact appropriate. If the question is in fact not appropriate for QA there is little that can be done. We should either delete it or kindly explain why it is not appropriate for QA and in the case that it is a longer discussion/topic links to materials showing the poster how deep it is, is in fact the answer. It may not be what they are looking for, but not all answers are.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Frank Reidar Haugen wrote:
I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches
What sort of site would then provide the answer for the esoteric items that you are looking for? Very likely won't be the sites that one might suppose - the documentation for the application/library/etc because those are unlikely to document it.
It's about the problem, and less specific. If my Google-fu or manual-skimming don't work, I ask. It is when I cannot search effectively through Google, (without disabling sites), because of questions, that the issue arise. I use this site a lot, and a Norwegian forum page. Else my Google-fu is my problem-solving tool! If there were more constructive answers to "stupid"/noob questions, this would never arise as an issue as it is starting to become now.
-
I have gone to the step of blocking sites like "Stackexchange" for my searches on programming references and tutorials, because their helpfulness is minimal. I usually want some information about something I haven't worked with before in C#, (esoteria in .net, or some weird errors). I Google it and I get answers that links to dead sites or removed articles, (that's named perfectly, and all the up-votes and thank-yous to indicate that this was once exactly what you wanted), or there are 100 comments/answers about how stupid a "noob question" it is or "Google it". I sometimes ask a question on a forum or this site, (I like this site BTW, though "stupid, noob question", or a question has been removed for being "unhelpful", has happened a few times), now when I get a "Google it" response and the above scenario occurs, (I get results of others having had the same question and the same retarded "Google it" response), I just wanna kill somebody. I think that Q&A-sites just messes up the value of programming-related searches. I can see an infinite loop of "Google it" occurring at some point in the near future! Thank you for reading my rant ;-) -Frank
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
need a way to exclude terms from the search results, as in, "exclude:Google it"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert EinsteinA Firefox add-on called Greasemonkey, (it can take scripts to to pretty amazing things), allow you to block sites,on google searches, (it hides them from you by manipulating what is being redered by Firefox), it also adds a neat "Block" button next to a search result to quickly add sites that bother you. Google used to have a "block"-list, that Google+ -users could add domains to, they removed it, (probably, many companies wanting to lure you in with 'search-term generated page titles', complained, and Google probably yielded, as a block-function, somewhat conflicts with the spirit of "Ad-Words" service) So there are ways, but google should make tools available to the users to manipulate the results you get. The Google AI, is good, but it's also, as all AI, a complete idiot, (search for something related to music a few times, and all your 'C#'-searches, will give you music-related results in stead of C# programming resources) But the core of the problem is less the google-results in themselves, and more the laziness of askers as wells as answerers on "ask"-forums. (regular and functioning forums, delete meaningless questions or answers). We, as the holders of the information, must be better and kinder in the sharing of it! -Frank
