Installation discussion list, Jan 2005 [was: Re: [plug] Newbie Guide - The beginning]

[bob]

Hi James,

Thank you for your extensive reply :). I'll try and keep this short as, as 
you've already noted, this thread is dragging on.


On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:10 pm, James Devenish wrote:
> [If you are one of the people who want this discussion silenced,
> feel free to filter out this thread based on its subject line or
> Message-ID/References headers. Also, if you are not Bob, you might
> want to skip the first few paragraphs and scroll down to the
> paragraph beginning with 'Your note about "cringing"'.]
>
> In message <200501282342.11432.bob at fots.org.au>
>
> on Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 11:42:10PM +0800, bob wrote:
> > I have been a member of PLUG for some years now, and a list subscriber
> > for considerably longer. I have persisted with PLUG despite the
> > problems with dealing with newbies (and not so newbies) in hopes of an
> > improvement...
>
> [...]
>
> > Expressing contempt for someone who has asked some lame question,
> > because they may not know enough to be able to ask something sensible,
> > is not the answer.
>
> Do you have examples of such problems? I am also wondering: who are
> these "newbies" and how do you know that they are "newbies"?

I do indeed have examples and I know that they were newbies [1] as they were 
people I'd pointed at this list as a possible source of info on linux. 
(admittedly this has not been so much in the last 12 -18 months)

> There is a 
> great deal of hand-holding on this list and my impression is that
> "conspicuous newbies" are normally treated well. (A recent exception has
> been noted repeatedly in this thread.) When I refer to "conspicuous
> newbies" I am thinking of two things: (a) it is sometimes obvious from
> someone's writing that they do not have confidence with Linux (b) I get
> an e-mail each time someone subscribes or unsubscribes from the list,
> and in that sense I see that people who are new to the mailing list get
> treated well.

I am glad you are taking on this role in the list and personally appreciate 
the difficulties involved as I perform similar duties on other lists. What 
I hope you appreciate is that there appears to be some gaps in this process 
and that a review of the way the list works may be useful to PLUG.

> We are all newbies forever, but it's the rate at which an 
> individual migrates from "absolute newbie" to "reasonably confident"
> that is going to vary. Perhaps one problem is that it is daunting to try
> to use e-mail to help an "extreme newbies" (i.e. someone who lacks
> confidence with personal computing *and* is inexperienced with Linux) --
> I'd imagine a "face-to-face" approach would be a better idea! It's
> really disheartening when that happens, but sometimes it's too hard to
> help someone via e-mail, and they need to self-learn some concepts
> before the list could do them any good.

Agreed, someone that innocent of computers is going to be difficult to 
reach. Perhaps there would be a role here for community education groups, 
someone that such a complete beginner can be pointed to (with instructions 
to ignore the MS propaganda :) 

> Also, people who have been 
> regularly getting assistance via the list would be expected to show
> citizenship by expanding their own wealth of knowledge and improving
> their "helpability" (i.e. making it easier for others to comprehend and
> explain their problem) as well as perhaps contributing their own
> experiences to the list.

Agreed again, it does not happen nearly enough though. It can be a very 
intimidating thing to do so it may need to nurtured by, amongst other 
things, a light and chatty style for the list and acknowledging 
contributions.

> On a related note, that are some "long-term newbies" (e.g. I think Arie
> described himself as a "newbie"), but the meaning of this is not clear
> to me. Perhaps is a reference to people's self-evaluation of their own
> confidence or overall experience? I wouldn't subscribe myself to a
> "newbie list", yet I'd be stuck like a newbie if I wanted plug in a
> FireWire video camera, or play a DVD, or use WINE, or play a game with a
> 3-d graphics card, or dual-boot a PC with Windows (took me three hours
> to partition the last PC hard drive I used).

I tend to define a newbie in terms of not having the tools to achieve the 
task they want to achieve... That's still an awfully large range of values 
for newbie but ... well you get that :).

> There was recently a discussion on another local lists where people
> expressed feelings of personal offence that their questions had gone
> unanswered. But, really, it's a bit like failing to get responses from
> an ad in a newspaper -- it's natural that sometimes no one thinks they
> have a worthwhile response to offer. It is unfortunate if this makes
> people feel "offended", but that is the same as any social situation.
> Perhaps the all we can hope to do in practical terms is add a warning
> to the newcomers' welcome message (I might forward a draft to the list
> later today.)

What about having someone being given the task of at least acknowledging the 
post. Perhaps something along the lines of "Sorry it looks like no one has 
an answer to your current question. It may help someone to answer it if you 
rephrase it or break the problem into smaller sections". A lot more hands 
on I know but for someone that's struggling it'd be much better than 
<crickets>

> Also, could someone clarify what newbie thinks a "flamewar" is? Although
> I do not read all the posts in this list, I have recently seen several
> people write that "I don't want to start an X versus Y flamewar". What
> does this mean and what is the point of saying it?

Unfortunately to some a flamewar can be something as mild as an overheated 
debate on "something or other". This is coming back to the Emile Postnews 
thing when I say that first impressions can make a big difference.

> I don't think 
> flamewars start without a reason: there must be some difference of
> opinion to begin with. If people can't debate their opposing points of
> view then others won't see how to make a choice among the inevitable
> plethora of options presented on this list. (Don't forget: sometimes
> people complain that "there were three different options mentioned, but
> no one explained why they would choose one instead of the other".)

How its done is the difference though. Being too didactic is going to put 
off someone who may be feeling less than confident about the subject - even 
if it is not being directed at them. 

This brings up the point that someone may not even have to have posted to 
PLUG to find the list an intimidating experience and to flee. I know an IT 
professional who joined and left the list in the course of an hour as she 
had the unfortunate luck to join just as a squabble over some point or 
other erupted. No insulting post needed to loose them just bad timing.

> Your note about "cringing" suggests that you think newbies are often
> "mistreated".

No, not often, but more than is good for PLUG.

> I can imagine that this sometimes arises from simple 
> misinterpretation / misunderstanding, and we can't eliminate that.

But we can try. (Emily again I'm afraid :)

> Short 
> of getting everyone to document their level of skill,

Which is probably not such a bad idea... How about - join the PLUG list and 
you're asked to introduce yourself describing such details.

> it is purely a 
> personal judgement as to the level of detail or conciseness that is
> needed in the reply. No one wants to have to explain how to launch a web
> browser if all that needs to be said is "You should search for this sort
> of problem with Google" -- this is the type of answer you get when we
> have no local experience with the issue.

This can be fine as an answer to someone "known" to the list but could well 
be seen as too brusque for some newbie who is nervous about approaching the 
list to begin with. Approaching new social groups can be incredibly 
unnerving, particularly if you know you're going to be exposing your 
ignorance by having to ask a question. That and a too curt answer can be a 
big blow to the ego. An over sensitive reaction? Yes... but all to common.

> However, if we had a "newbie 
> list", it might be more obvious that exorbitant explanation is required.
> I think that "newbie lists" work well if they exist for people who need
> answers to narrow range of frequently-asked or "obvious" questions.
> Otherwise, the distinction between a "newbie list" the "main list" is
> more like factional segregation (and we don't currently have factions,
> do we???).

I am not calling for the creation of a newbie list. I am asking whether 
_this_ list which is advertised as "a good way to get help if you're new to 
Linux" [2] might not be better used as a newbie friendly welcoming port of 
call - and that the more combative elements be asked to move to where the 
robust stuff is not going to frighten the children and horses :).


> One of the problems I see with a generic "newbie list" is that everyone
> is a newbie in one way or another, and everyone has lapses of memory.
> Would we expect that an explanation of the command-line shell would
> appear on the newbie list or the main list -- the answers could benefit
> both newbies *and* non-newbies! Perhaps, instead, we could think of
> having an "installation" discussion list. I think this is a more helpful
> distinction for "gurus" as well as "newbies". The list would naturally
> be open to those who are generally exploring the possibility of
> installing an operating system, or installing Linux applications for the
> first time. Indeed, we could collect people's names and addresses at
> workshops and installfests so that they could receive follow-up
> assistance via a list called installation at plug.linux.org.au.

I think an "installation" discussion list." is perhaps a bit too specific 
and may not be a catchall for newbies.

Would it really hurt to put on some party manners to welcome newbies to 
PLUG? 

> FYI, statistics...I think we have about 300 subscribers on the list, of
> whom a whopping 210 have posted messages in the last six months (overall
> rate of about 25 messages per day over the last six months -- less than
> in previous years). We've gained 60 new subscribers in the last six
> months and lost 44. 15 people joined but then didn't make it past six
> months. I compared that to some non-academic lists at the Guild and
> their gain/loss ratio was 1.6: ours is 1.4. (But these are guesses --
> it's really hard to give good stats for gains/losses because a lot of
> people unsubscribe/resubscribe due to holidays or changes of address,
> not because they are joining or leaving PLUG -- I've tried to manually
> exclude them from the above stats).


Thanks for the stats. I hope that there can be some constructive thought 
given to improving those numbers - no matter how good or bad they are PLUG 
gains from trying to improve them :)


[1] for certain values of newbie

[2] http://plug.linux.org.au/

-- 
I try not to break the rules but merely to test their elasticity.
		-- Bill Veeck