Skip to content
Prev 60012 / 398502 Next

Reasons not to answer very basic questions in a straightforwa rd way; was: Re: [R] creating a sequence of object names

I'd like to make just a couple of points:

R-help is considered by quite a few people to be "high-traffic".  As such,
many have low appetite for very basic questions.  (I wouldn't call them
"silly".)  In many cases such questions are answered by pointing to a
particular function help page or manual section.  In this particular case,
it's probably not at the very basic level that would be covered in "An
Introduction to R".  However, it _is_ a bona fide FAQ, thus the entry 7.21
in the R-FAQ.  Now, if there's ever one type of questions that many do not
like to see in a mailing list, it's one that can be found in the list FAQ,
as one of the main reasons for having the FAQ is to prevent such questions
from being asked over and over again on the list.

Now, if after reading the FAQ entry, you still can't solve the problem, then
you should tell us that, as well as how you tried and failed, so people have
a much better idea where you went off track, and are more likely to give you
more useful help.  This is in the Posting Guide, which suggest ways to ask
question that maximize the probability of getting useful replies.  Reading
that is to your own benefit, as well as others on the list.

As Duncan Murdoch said in a reply to a poster complaining (essentially about
being told to RTFM) on R-devel, we are not asking you to read these things
over and over again, nor on a periodic basis, but please do try to at least
take a glance before posting.  Posts that get less than enthusiastic
response are usually ones that showed that posters' unwillingness to do the
minimal work to help themselves, not because they are considered `dumb' or
`silly'.  In such cases people are much less willing to help.

Cheers,
Andy