Skip to Content
author's profile photo

Rules of engagement

Hi

to be honest, I do not remember reading these rules. So I make a little search & I found this:

https://community.sap.com/resources/rules-of-engagement

First point, it is super high level, no details, not a lot of points & all these points could be understand easily (not like G..gle F.c.b..k etc). But maybe it is too high level.

I have seen people asking 2, 3 times by days very very simple questions, obviously without searching before asking. And when I send an alert to the Moderator, I received a "If you don't wish to answer them, please ignore them. Thanks!"

It is little bit hard to read that, when you took times to help peoples.

And I really would like to know if you think it is normal to have no filtering on the questions ?

(I do not speak about newbies, they didn't know the keywords of there problems, and most of the time they are happy when you find the corresponding documentation, I speak about "Hey, how do I used READ DATASET ?").

* Please Login or Register to Comment on or Follow discussions.

30 Comments

  • Nov 13, 2019 at 09:02 AM

    The result of inclusiveness, I guess. :)

  • Nov 13, 2019 at 02:20 PM

    Rules were change to promote inclusiveness.

  • Nov 14, 2019 at 09:34 PM

    I think the moderator's advice is sound. If a poster obviously made no effort at all, and is basically just trying to get you to do their job for them, ignore the question and move on. Better questions get answered, and really good questions are rewarded with longer, more detailed answers.

    Also, where to draw the line on whether or not someone put enough effort into their question is subjective anyway. You make that choice for yourself.

    • Nov 15, 2019 at 06:25 AM

      It sound right, but I am pretty sure it reduce the quality of the forum.

    • Nov 19, 2019 at 07:55 PM

      The advice would be sound if you didn't have to click on the question to find out that it's stupendously basic and simple. Sure, you can see the votes, but that's only going to tell you that 5 people wasted their time before you saw it on the list.

      For about ten years (from ~2006), we worked hard, built up strict moderation, and created a useful environment. Then someone decided that this was in fact an evil way of doing things, we'd been doing it wrong all this time, and any right-minded person would agree. (The definition of "right-minded" is someone who agrees it was evil...). :-)

      My stand has always been - if you have strict moderation, people who are motivated and will engage will remain, as will expert responders. If you don't, you'll end up with a huge membership, few of whom are engaged, and the experts will depart. I've seen nothing in the past couple of years to persuade me that I'm wrong.

      But that's fine. I read the blogs and occasionally write them; I don't answer questions very much.

      • Nov 19, 2019 at 10:36 PM

        Sure, but as I said, where to draw the line is subjective. Your "stupendously basic and simple" question might be another person's "sure the question could be better but I'm in a good mood so why not" question. Every question will never be just so to every person visiting the forum.

        Also, there's a whole spectrum between beginner and expert. Someone who has progressed slightly beyond beginner, will learn a lot from researching and answering beginner questions.

        • Nov 20, 2019 at 03:22 PM

          That doesn't resolve the issue that I have to click on the what I consider to be the laziest question in the world, in order to ignore it. Why should the fact that you (for example!) love answering lazy questions cause me to suffer?

          But the question of the morality or subjectivity of basic questions, is in my view irrelevant. What matters is that which helps the most people the most. Light moderation, there are no basic/lazy questions is less beneficial to the SAP community than stricter moderation where the moderators are trusted to weed out questions that can be easily answered with a bit of effort, for the reason I gave above (beginning "My stand").

          I guess it's individualism that rules the day...! :-p

          • Nov 20, 2019 at 09:05 PM

            You are still talking about your opinion on what constitutes a "lazy question", which leads me to believe you missed the part about subjectivity.

            • Nov 21, 2019 at 05:06 PM

              If you prefer, you can replace the word "lazy" in the first paragraph with "lazy in my subjective opinion". And you haven't addressed the question.

              Having been a moderator for ten years, I'm well aware of the subjectivity, thank-you. The point is to trust moderators to be reasonable. in their application of the rules. The rules have to be fairly woolly in their definition to allow for discretion. Where people objected to my moderation decision, I always addressed their complaints, and sometimes we reached agreement. Which was nice.

              Basic question does not equal lazy question. Although I've used the term interchangeably, I really mean lazy questions. I.e. where the poster hasn't searched, hasn't read the keyword documentation (in ABAP), and/or apparently has made no effort to try to resolve this issue themselves.

  • Nov 18, 2019 at 02:56 PM

    I agree with Morten Wittrock and the moderator... We can answer them or just ignore them.. Unless if they are straightforward duplicates, which some people does by posting a same question in hours difference to get an answer and attention :D .

    There should be a new process which should be implemented to "flag as duplicate" and provide the link for the question. Check the link below, which makes a lot of sense about not deleting the duplicate questions (Not about inclusiveness). and to have a different process implementation required.

    https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10841/how-should-duplicate-questions-be-handled

  • Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded