When is it rude, lazy or selfish to ask for help on RMweb?

[Pennine MC]

. It's hardly surprising, but clearly a little politeness and common courtesy goes a long way.

 

Indeed, not rocket science is it. As I prompted you to start this, I suppose I should take the opportunity to add to it - the subject is quite close to my heart and so far, it's been useful and cathartic to see others with similar views. There's too much to requote so some of this will inevitably be repetition.

 

I will just pick up on the 'use Google' thing - it should be obvious that this isnt really applicable to modelling help-type info such as how to wire points, build wagon kits or make scenery. These are the sorts of thing this forum excels at. Having said that, there is a definite transcience to forum content - a couple of years ago I put a fair bit of time into a basic wagon weathering thread, as the question was getting asked so often. It still is, but my thread is buried at the bottom of the WP&T subforum; others are occasionally good enough to link to it but to keep mentioning it myself so long afterwards seems a bit self-indulgent

 

To take the Stratford depot example again - yes, it did lead to an interesting discussion; I'd maybe say not that it shouldnt have existed at all, but that that little bit of Googling would have given a good foundation for the OP to pose some more focussed questions instead of effectively saying 'tell me everything you know', information that could potentially fill a book

 

 

Going back over to the negative, my pet peeves also include:

 

Posters who dont drop back to say thanks despite checks on their profiles showing they've been active several times. It's not just about the thanks, it's as much so that we respondents can get an idea if what we're supplying is actually what's wanted

 

Headings that are only vaguely connected with the query - e.g it could say 'Heljan class 33' and when you open it, it turns out to be a general query about, say, couplings - which, for the OP, happen to be on a 33...

 

Posters who only say 'oh, I've looked there' when someone has spent time giving info from just that source

 

Respondents who post information that conflicts with existing info in the thread, but dont acknowledge the existing post (big irritation, this). It's not that I mind being wrong, but I think it's courtesy to be requoted or addressed if someone wants to contradict you. Not only that but it doesnt help the OP, who is left with having to assess who's more likely to be correct and to wade through the frayed tempers that can arise

 

Similarly, information that conflicts with info that's in an older thread that's been linked to (the net result is the same, contradiction without acknowledgement). If the query is a frequent one (pre-BR coaches, for instance, or the infamous 'chromatic blue') the older thread might well contain a definitive answer that someone has taken a lot of time to compile

 

On the subject of linking older threads, I personally do this to save myself and/or others repeating the same stuff again and again. It certainly isnt reluctance to help, though it might appear so - but apart from that, the questioner will actually get more info rather than less by looking at what's already come up

 

Anyway, that's my thoughts after a busy week and an Internet-less evening last night. I'm sure I'll think of more later On the subject of sharing knowledge, a while back I was also passed some quotations by Mellow Mike, a US weatherer who uis renowned for not sharing - they might make interesting discussion material, if anybody's interested

[Pugsley]

Would those be the ones about not feeling compelled to offer a ladder when raising the bar, and likening a weathering forum to a Star-Trek convention, amongst others?

 

He does come across as a bit, how can I say, up himself.

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

Going back over to the negative, my pet peeves also include:

 

Posters who dont drop back to say thanks despite checks on their profiles showing they've been active several times. It's not just about the thanks, it's as much so that we respondents can get an idea if what we're supplying is actually what's wanted

 

Well put Ian on occasion I have gone to some trouble to delve out original source information only to find (if it was acknowledged at all) that it wasn't what was wanted in the first place. I realise in some instances questions may be vague because the enquirer desn't know enough to be any more specific - fair enough. But when they are specific and then say they meant something else it's a tad frustrating, doesn't happen often but....

 

 

Respondents who post information that conflicts with existing info in the thread, but dont acknowledge the existing post (big irritation, this). It's not that I mind being wrong, but I think it's courtesy to be requoted or addressed if someone wants to contradict you. Not only that but it doesnt help the OP, who is left with having to assess who's more likely to be correct and to wade through the frayed tempers that can arise

 

 

I find this sort of thing maddening - it is in some respects similar to my earlier comment about folk not bothering to read through a thread before they post. I know that can take time but I think it might be time well spent.

 

One problem which does occur 'though is correcting errors in information given by others. All of us, notwithstanding a degree of checking, can err or make mistakes but when something is downright wrong, in spades in some cases, there is the difficulty of politely putting things right (twice in one recent thread!!). Should we be a bit more blunt (but that would cause upsets to otherwise nice people) or should we 'report' their inaccurate offering, or should we politely 'put things right'?

[Bob Reid]

....On the subject of sharing knowledge, a while back I was also passed some quotations by Mellow Mike, a US weatherer who uis renowned for not sharing - they might make interesting discussion material, if anybody's interested

 

I'm certainly interested Ian, as no doubt others are in expanding on the OPs question!

 

(I'm not sure I could add anything that's not already been said to the original question posed, and I'm occasionally guilty of wandering of at tangents at times myself , though hopefully I try to re-dress the balance by providing some helpful answers)!

[martin_wynne]

Does it really matter how the question is asked or whether the questioner says thanks? That's true for a PM or personal email, but not on a forum.

 

When you a reply on a forum you are publishing an article on a public web site which will be read by thousands, indexed by Google, and archived for ever.

 

In that context the original questioner is largely irrelevant. Even if he is rude or lazy or selfish, among the other 9,999 members there will be many who appreciate and learn from your post. And readers not yet born who will one day find your words and be grateful that you took the trouble to write them.

 

Martin.

[Jamie]

Basically it's just a basic social skill, in text form - how to request help in a manner most likely to elicit the most positive response. But just as in face-to-face communications, one ought to avoid taking the proverbial.

 

In that context the original questioner is largely irrelevant. Even if he is rude or lazy or selfish, among the other 9,999 members there will be many who appreciate and learn from your post. And readers not yet born who will one day find your words and be grateful that you took the trouble to write them.

 

Martin.

The phrase "you'll get your thanks in Heaven" comes to mind there.

The eternal archive is interesting, we often hear of the transient nature of the web.

[martin_wynne]

The eternal archive is interesting, we often hear of the transient nature of the web.

Hi Jamie,

 

There are many projects creating a web archive. For example try the Wayback Machine: http://www.waybackmachine.org

 

There is typically a 2-year delay before old web pages appear on the Wayback Machine. Here for example is a random link back into RMweb as it was at 5:18pm on 31st July 2008:

 

http://web.archive.o...ewforum.php?f=7

 

Martin.

[Pennine MC]

Does it really matter how the question is asked or whether the questioner says thanks?

 

Obviously it does matter Martin, otherwise people wouldn't have said as much in this very thread. And as I've already said (and Mike has concurred), the 'thanks' thing is about more than just the obvious.

 

 

When you a reply on a forum you are publishing an article on a public web site which will be read by thousands, indexed by Google, and archived for ever.

 

...

 

In that context the original questioner is largely irrelevant. Even if he is rude or lazy or selfish, among the other 9,999 members there will be many who appreciate and learn from your post.

 

Which surely makes it more important that all relevant info is collated together as far as possible, and not spread around half a dozen threads asking much the same question and which will consequently be harder to search.

 

I would agree though that the thread is there for potentially many more people than the OP - but that only makes it more important that he asks in a way that will actually make folk want to put the time in to answer

[Will Vale]

Martin's point touches on something I was wondering about: I don't like the idea of people not saying thanks - that's rude, clearly. But I also don't really like the idea of people posting replies in the expectation of thanks as well as or instead of a desire to help.

 

Not saying anyone is, just that the ideal (for me) would be that people answer from the goodness of their hearts, and likewise people post thanks in the same spirit. I hope this isn't something that has to be policed.

 

Cheers,

 

Will

 

 

[Pennine MC]

 

Not saying anyone is ... (posting replies in the expectation of thanks as well as or instead of a desire to help) ... just that the ideal (for me) would be that people answer from the goodness of their hearts, and likewise people post thanks in the same spirit.

 

 

Sadly Will, human nature will ensure that that ideal never occurs (and I dont think you can ever truly guess the motivation behind a post, because it's complex). I dont think anyone wants metaphorical backslapping or being told we're the saviours of the hobby every time we provide info that's second nature to us. But a simple acknowledgement of a courtesy extended (just as say, on the road) is surely just good manners; that shouldnt need explaining, you just 'know' it's the right thing to do

 

Perhaps some of what I'm going to say now should have been added to my 'pet peeves', but I'll add it here as it seems relevant

 

One motivation in replying is a desire to display one's knowledge - this is unfortunately obvious from the poster who adds information that's at worst irrelevant to the OP query or at best, only marginally so, not through misunderstanding but because he knows it. Another is when a reply has been kept deliberately generalised in order to help trhe OP take in bite-sized chunks of info, and then somebody steams in with the 'ah but dont forget the two non-standard engines of class 327C', when the class 327C has been purposely left out to avoid complexity. This desire is probably a more selfish one, but having said that I dont think anyone can always say they're not guilty of it. Oddly though, for my own part I hate being dubbed an 'expert', because part of being knowledgeable is 'knowing what you know'. By that, I mean know your limitations - be sure of your strengths by all means, but dont venture into areas where your knowledge is sketchy unless you're prepared to say as much. Accept that other posters may correct you, and accept their corrections with good grace.

 

Leading on from that, I would think another desire is to make RMweb a place where information is as correct, complete and reliable as possible. That means we dont like to let incorrect information pass as fact. It also means that if we're not entirely sure about something, we will say as much, or we'll use phrases like 'IIRC' (if I remember correctly) or 'AFAIK' (as far as I know). Again for myself, I'm more interested in possessing and providing the full picture than I am in being 'right' all the time - if a bit more info is provided as it was in this example, then I'm a happier man

 

And of course we also have the simple desire to help (which despite my generally cynical outlook on life, I do believe is refreshingly common in folk). But both this and the point above rely on goodwill. All through my life, I have had an aversion to folk who either just dont understand the concept of goodwill, or think it's something they should see how far they can stretch, as some sort of power game. We all have other things to do in life and taken to its logical conclusion, if enough people grow weary of their free time being taken advantage of (whether deliberately, or through simple ignorance or thoughtlessness), then the forum will obviously be a poorer place

[Guest Phil]

Does it really matter how the question is asked or whether the questioner says thanks?

 

Obviously it does matter Martin, otherwise people wouldn't have said as much in this very thread. And as I've already said (and Mike has concurred), the 'thanks' thing is about more than just the obvious.

 

To be honest Martin, I am quite surprised at your statement. One of my personal life rules is "treat others as you want to be treated". to me that means being polite and courteous in this life. Of course it is not always that easy particularly if you are in an upset or angry frame of mind, and the internet is the easiest place in the world to sound off.

 

I have to admit to doing this a few times. Because correspondents on the internet do not see each other's faces and see emotions, I believe it is even more of a prerequisite that manners are used and displayed.

 

So yes, IMHO it is important that a questioner says thanks.

 

The way a question is asked is probably governed by the social interaction skills of the questioner. I worked with a number of people who have been practically illiterate in terms if writing and communicating. For this reason the clarity of their questions will always be hampered. This issue might come over within the message as lazy rather than challenged, provoking a possibly inappopriate response.

 

 

In answer to the OP - google is definately a big pal of mine. I try to use that as my primary tool before asking questions online. There are occasions though when I know that someone on RMweb will know the answer to my question, but others may well benefit from the answer to that question, which is why I use this method sometimes.

 

 

Finally Martin, when I signed up to Templot you asked all the Templotees a question. You were seeking evidence of steam locos running over Pandrol clipped track prior to end of steam in 1968. I sent you a PM on 3rd September with a link to an online image proving this. I didn't receive a response to my PM.

 

The link is here http://gallery62603..../p25977062.html

 

EDIT

 

I guess from your statement, i shouldn't have expected an acknowledgement

[coachmann]

It seems to have been covered as one would expect from a membership that in the main still believes in good manners and common courtesy. I expect the odd-ones out will eventually fall by their own sword.

[Andy Y]

I think that's a fair conclusion Larry. Over time we collectively get wise to those who do all the asking and taking, without thanks or with no evidence of turning the information given into results - in the end they're the ones who lose out by not benefiting from or using the knowledge shared.

[martin_wynne]

Finally Martin, when I signed up to Templot you asked all the Templotees a question. You were seeking evidence of steam locos running over Pandrol clipped track prior to end of steam in 1968. I sent you a PM on 3rd September with a link to an online image proving this. I didn't receive a response to my PM.

 

The link is here http://gallery62603..../p25977062.html

 

EDIT

 

I guess from your statement, I shouldn't have expected an acknowledgement

Hi Phil,

 

Thanks for your PM. I'm aware of it and replying to it is on my to-do list. I do have a very full email inbox and I can't always respond immediately. It is less than a month since your message, I have other correspondents who have been waiting much longer.

 

The real mystery is why you sent it as a PM instead of posting it in the relevant topic so that everyone can see it? I don't want information which is denied to others. Had you done that I would have tried to respond much sooner, and others may have developed the topic further by now.

 

I would just point out that on my Profile page it says:

 

I prefer to use email rather than PMs for off-board messages.

 

Please click the link below right to send me an email.

 

Thanks,

 

Martin.

I dislike receiving PMs as they are so difficult to keep track of replies on several different forums. Email is much better so that I can keep everything in one place on my computer. I did in fact have PMs disabled but it seems to have been turned back on in the recent software upgrade. I have now disabled PMs again.

 

Please email me instead, to martin@templot.com . Thanks.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pennine MC]

The real mystery is why you sent it as a PM instead of posting it in the relevant topic so that everyone can see it? I don't want information which is denied to others.

 

What a strange thing to say, and what a very unpleasant spin to put on it.

[martin_wynne]

What a strange thing to say, and what a very unpleasant spin to put on it.

I don't understand your point. The P in PM means "Private", i.e. information which is for the recipient only. Otherwise replying in the topic is the obvious thing to do -- that's what RMweb is here for, communal discussion.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Oldddudders]

One motivation in replying is a desire to display one's knowledge - this is unfortunately obvious from the poster who adds information that's at worst irrelevant to the OP query or at best, only marginally so, not through misunderstanding but because he knows it.

Guilty as charged. But I think there are plenty of us who have some "half-info" on a subject - in contrast to e.g. the Robert Carrolls and Paul Bartletts of this world who have diligently researched and carefully assembled huge databases of facts, details and photos, which they generously share. I often find that my ramblings all over the shop bear just as much fruit as my attempt to inform the OP, and, as has been said, it may be that another member can seize upon my marginal diversion. A delightful case in point is a throwaway response I made in a thread a couple of days ago, which has prompted the warmest possible invitation in a PM from another member (as a loner who somehow got married, I actually felt quite emotional when I read his kind offer).

 

As for the appreciation button, I use it a lot - because there is a lot to appreciate! - but there are times when I just have to say "Wow!" in print. I don't ask very many questions - where would I start?! - but try to give thanks when anyone adds the slightest help.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I feel the idea of a "thank you" also shows that the person has read your reply/response.

 

It's surprising how many people at work don't ever give a "thank you". Perhaps they don't bother reading my emails.....

[trisonic]

I don't understand your point. The P in PM means "Private", i.e. information which is for the recipient only. Otherwise replying in the topic is the obvious thing to do -- that's what RMweb is here for, communal discussion.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

I agree with Martin. I treat the contents of PM's to me as private. In fact on one BB that I'm a member of (a Musician's one) you will be banned for sharing the contents of PM's. I find it faintly irritating when reading an interesting thread to find someone posting: "PM'ed you on subject" to the the OP (or indeed anyone else) when prior to then the thread was open and informative all round.

 

Best, Pete.

 

 

 

[Pennine MC]

I agree with Martin. I treat the contents of PM's to me as private. In fact on one BB that I'm a member of (a Musician's one) you will be banned for sharing the contents of PM's.

 

 

I'm not aware of any such rule on here Pete, though I can't and won't speak for Templot. My own feeling is that whether or not PM contents are completely private is by agreement (whether express, tacit, or implied) between the participants, combined with a dollop of common sense. PMs can be used for many, many purposes, just like an e-mail or phone call - some are obviously sensitive, others might be of no interest to third parties, but I doubt very much if Phil intended his info sent to Martin to be priveleged in any way.

[trisonic]

S'no problem.

I still think if something is relevant to the thread/topic in question then the comments should be posted in the normal way - to send a PM in itself implies that the information is not to be shared - otherwise why not just post it?

 

Best, Pete.

[Pennine MC]

I still think if something is relevant to the thread/topic in question then the comments should be posted in the normal way -

 

 

In general terms, I'd agree, although to not do so doesnt necessarily imply questionable intent. As to specifics, then I think we'd best let Phil answer that when he's available; I doubt very much there was any intent to deprive a wider audience, which is why the inference in Martin' s post angers me so.

[martin_wynne]

I'm not aware of any such rule on here Pete, though I can't and won't speak for Templot.

There are no rules on the Templot Club forum about this or anything else.

 

I have disabled my own PMs on there, but what other members do in their private messages is entirely up to them.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Guest Phil]

I agree with Martin. I treat the contents of PM's to me as private. In fact on one BB that I'm a member of (a Musician's one) you will be banned for sharing the contents of PM's.

 

I'm not aware of any such rule on here Pete, though I can't and won't speak for Templot. My own feeling is that whether or not PM contents are completely private is by agreement (whether express, tacit, or implied) between the participants, combined with a dollop of common sense. PMs can be used for many, many purposes, just like an e-mail or phone call - some are obviously sensitive, others might be of no interest to third parties, but I doubt very much if Phil intended his info sent to Martin to be priveleged in any way.

 

S'no problem.

I still think if something is relevant to the thread/topic in question then the comments should be posted in the normal way - to send a PM in itself implies that the information is not to be shared - otherwise why not just post it?

 

Best, Pete.

 

I don't want to extend this discourse any further than this post, but must clarify something first.

 

When I signed up to Templot there was a message on that forum from Martin asking about pre 1968 steam working over Pandrol clipped track. I messaged Martin not too long after saying I'd found a image of a diesel working on the Southern Region. From hazy memory the shot was of a Brush type 2 working a special train back from Southampton to the Eastern Region sometime around 1965 or 1966. IIRC the train was on the Up and a stretch of track on the Down was fitted with pandrol clips. Although it wasn't a steam loco, there were regular steam hauled services over this track until 1967.

 

I don't recall Martin's response but from memory it was certainly not as though I'd found the holy grail. I've had Martin's quest in the back of my mind ever since and found a fotopic image at the beginning of September of a black five passing over Pandrol fitted track.

 

My first thought was to PM Martin using RMweb, because I couldn't find his email address in my email system. Perhaps I could have logged in the Templot website and got his email address from that, then emailed him, but I went for the quick and easy option, knowing that Martin is very active on RMweb. It seems that because I chose to "secretly" PM Martin I am mysteriously trying to withhold information of use to Rwebbers. Perhaps Martin could have posted his question on RMweb, instead of keeping it "in house" If anyone wishes to wander back through the nearly five thousand posts I have made on RMweb I think they'll find that I never, repeat never make any attempt to withhold anything from the rmweb membership.

 

I've said my piece now and am moving on.

[martin_wynne]

Perhaps Martin could have posted his question on RMweb, instead of keeping it "in house"

Hi Phil,

 

I have obviously offended you in some way, and since it was certainly not my intention to do that, I'm sorry.

 

The problem is that you didn't give me time enough to respond. I was well aware of your PM and fully intending to reply and thank you for your trouble. In doing so I would have pointed out that the question had previously been well answered by Adam in this entire topic on the subject on Old RMweb:

 

http://www.rmweb.co....hp?f=88&t=45063

 

 

 

 

I would have said that further pictures are always welcome and suggested that you create a continuation topic here on New RMweb and post them there. Other members may then have been inspired to develop the topic further.

 

So you can see that the topic was indeed raised on RMweb.

 

And also in these links:

 

http://groups.yahoo....ot/message/7184

 

http://85a.co.uk/for...826&forum_id=11

 

I don't recall anywhere asking for pictures to be sent to me personally, but if you want to do that PLEASE use email and not the dreaded PMs. There is no need to log in anywhere to find my email address, you can email me from my Profile here, and my email address is also on the front page at http://www.templot.com

 

And now it is here too: martin@templot.com

 

best regards,

 

Martin.