I miss Waterbug...

[crsublette]

1) Regarding the above conversation, I also seem to be noticing that except for us diehards, most people just sign on, ask a few questions, then leave and never to be seen again. WB, if that seems to be a concern and a waste of your time, why even bother?

I've already said this before, but I've learned a lot from the forums. There's good and bad advice and over time you learn what's good and what's not. Sometimes someone just mentions a word, a term that I've never heard of before so I read up about it and presto, I know something that I didn't before.

But here's another thing that no one has mentioned. I first noticed this when I was teaching my kids school work and they in turn taught others. When you explain something to someone or teach something to someone, you get better at it. You learn though the process of teaching someone else. So this is a side benefit, and a win-win situation. At least, it works for me.

1) Regarding the above conversation, I also seem to be noticing that except for us diehards, most people just sign on, ask a few questions, then leave and never to be seen again.

Not seen in the literal sense of "reading" a username being online, but take a gander at the total volumes of Guest readers that are consistently online.

For this forum, the Guest readers fluctuate from around 200~350 I have seen the same type of trend with other forums. As far as I am aware, koiphen has been by far the most popular koi hobby forum around, with around 900~2,000 Guests online reading content. Then, there are the little "private club" niche forums here and there like koishack, koibito, and other forums where you often see just a dozen or so guest visitors.


For the longest time, I would only a read of the forum before I actually would post anything, even after I would become a registered user.


If there is a forum that is mildly interesting to me, then I show my support by simply just becoming a "registered user" even though I may ever only read and rarely ever post.

 

[crsublette]

In my humble opinion, Less is not better.

Going to play devil's advocate.

To often, I reads answers given to the author that is the equivalent to giving answers to a kid on a test, which might be fine for the author except the author is not the only one reading the thread.

Students asks: What is 1 + 2 ??
Math Teacher : 3.
And this is how the entire Math class session progressed until school was let out.

There are plenty of folk that enjoy giving the quick, short, answers to the test. I believe there are far too many folk that want do this, which is completely fine.

I should not have to create a new thread... every... single... time... I want to learn more.

So, I share what I know and how it is derived and shared as a teacher would to a student.

Not doing it out of a sense of self aggrandizement, which I know folk don't think I am, but I know some folk might think otherwise, which I often hear through their statements of "oh, you are just being a know-it-all". So, stating this so to get beyond this nonesensical BS...

If the author gets something out of it, then awesome! However, I post for the hundreds and hundreds of readers out there that just so happen to "google" the thread and found a gem from a thread asking a simply question.

 

[dieselplower]

One thing I do like about waterbug and crsublette is that they do often give more info that was asked, and, this info helps the person learn more. Its good to answer a question someone is asking about something they know they don't know. But when you inform them of additional info, that is relevant, that they didn't know they don't know, that is better. It helps them learn more.

 

[crsublette]

One thing I do like about waterbug and crsublette is that they do often give more info that was asked, and, this info helps the person learn more. Its good to answer a question someone is asking about something they know they don't know. But when you inform them of additional info, that is relevant, that they didn't know they don't know, that is better. It helps them learn more.

Exactly!! :afro:


And... For the record... :chair: I do not talk about what composition is required for a compound to be considered as organic or inorganic. I do not talk about what the catalyst is in the organic chemistry of a pond product being dosed into the water. I do not step through the stoichemistry of how carbon dioxide (CO2) turns into carbonic acid (H2CO3).


Although, I will sometimes refer to compounds or elements by abbreviation, such as "water" is H2O and make a mention that H2O is actually a hydroxide anion (OH-) and a hydrogen cation (H+) or also referred as two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom. A toughie!! Although, refering to water as H2O or calcium carbonate as CaCO3, might go over the head of folk getting too much California sun and drinking too much Cerveza. :0000000057: :cheerful:

 

[JohnHuff]

That is the problem. You're writing the answer for non-existent people. Answer the author, then deal with any others.

To often, I reads answers given to the author that is the equivalent to giving answers to a kid on a test, which might be fine for the author except the author is not the only one reading the thread.

 

[crsublette]

That is the problem. You're writing the answer for non-existent people. Answer the author, then deal with any others.

I suppose this is where the difference resides...

I do not view the Guest readers as "non-existent" people.

Also, I do not view the author's potentional desire to learn more, although not explicitly mentioned, as non-existent.


The answer is still there, in the long answer, that helps the author, which if the author would read it, then they would find it.


Although, I think you make a good point... I need to more often have 2 answers. The "short cliff's note" answer and then the "long educational" answer, which I have done on a few occasions such as on post#11, calcium chloride to lower pH.



I think the problem might be... My "short answers" might be more like 5 sentences (somtimes longer) instead of 2 sentences.

Actually, I think the main problem is that we now live in a Twitter, 117 characters or less, speed reading world, which is not necessarily a good thing depending on the discussion subject.

 

[JohnHuff]

I use the word "non-existent" loosely, maybe theatrically, to prove a point. Forget that. Instead, look at it this way. Let me try and explain it in a way that you may better understand it.

1) You have one (1, I, uno,) person asking you a question.
2) Your job would be to answer his question in a way so that he can understand it.
3) Forget about "Guest" readers. They are not the ones asking your question. There maybe 1 million, there maybe no Guest readers. If they have a question, they will ask you of it. Your primary duty is to the person who asked you the question, not potential guest speakers who may or may not be there.
4) Forget about the guy's "potential" desire. Who knows what he wants. He may want this, he may want the world, he may want nothing. It's not up to you to decide what he potentially wants. Answer his question.

This goes back to my outburst at you from sometime ago. When you answer a guy with a complexity that overwhelms the original question, it makes you look like you want to display your mental prowess, not answer the guy's question. To me, mental prowess means the ability to answer the guy so that he is satisfied with your answer, not perplexed by it. To me, mental prowess means the ability to focus on the guy and his question, not potential other people who may or may not be there or their collective potential desires and not the guy's potential desire for more knowledge.

The ability to answer the question succinctly rather than with an outburst of verbal diarrhea is actually a good thing.

I suppose this is where the difference resides...

I do not view the Guest readers as "non-existent" people.

Also, I do not view the author's potentional desire to learn more, although not explicitly mentioned, as non-existent.


The answer is still there, in the long answer, that helps the author, which if the author would read it, then they would find it.


Although, I think you make a good point... I need to more often have 2 answers. The "short cliff's note" answer and then the "long educational" answer, which I have done on a few occasions such as on post#11, calcium chloride to lower pH.



I think the problem might be... My "short answers" might be more like 5 sentences (somtimes longer) instead of 2 sentences.

Actually, I think the main problem is that we now live in a Twitter, 117 characters or less, speed reading world, which is not necessarily a good thing depending on the discussion subject.

 

[crsublette]

I use the word "non-existent" loosely, maybe theatrically, to prove a point. Forget that. Instead, look at it this way. Let me try and explain it in a way that you may better understand it.

1) You have one (1, I, uno,) person asking you a question.
2) Your job would be to answer his question in a way so that he can understand it.
3) 3) Forget about "Guest" readers. They are not the ones asking your question. There maybe 1 million, there maybe no Guest readers. If they have a question, they will ask you of it. Your primary duty is to the person who asked you the question, not potential guest speakers who may or may not be there.
4) Forget about the guy's "potential" desire. Who knows what he wants. He may want this, he may want the world, he may want nothing. It's not up to you to decide what he potentially wants. Answer his question.

4) This goes back to my outburst at you from sometime ago. When you answer a guy with a complexity that overwhelms the original question, it makes you look like you want to display your mental prowess, not answer the guy's question. To me, mental prowess means the ability to answer the guy so that he is satisfied with your answer, not perplexed by it. To me, mental prowess means the ability to focus on the guy and his question, not potential other people who may or may not be there or their collective potential desires and not the guy's potential desire for more knowledge.

5) The ability to answer the question succinctly rather than with an outburst of verbal diarrhea is actually a good thing.

1) You have one (1, I, uno,) person asking you a question.

Indeed, but One person asking a question does not mean others were not interested in the answer to the same question.

No such thing as "one being the loniest number" on a public forum.


2) Your job would be to answer his question in a way so that he can understand it.

Check out the hyperlink I previously referenced. This particular author was helped quite fine and got his questions answered including many other threads where I have contributed. My long replies have lead to many successful encounters.

If they do not understand, then they ask a question and my following answer would then tend to be much shorter.

Most often it is not what I write they do not understand. Most often it is a concept in which I reference that they do not understand. So, then, a question is asked and it answered within a much shorter reply.


3) 3) Forget about "Guest" readers. They are not the ones asking your question. There maybe 1 million, there maybe no Guest readers. If they have a question, they will ask you of it. Your primary duty is to the person who asked you the question, not potential guest speakers who may or may not be there.
4) Forget about the guy's "potential" desire. Who knows what he wants. He may want this, he may want the world, he may want nothing. It's not up to you to decide what he potentially wants. Answer his question.

It is also not up to you decided what he potentially does not want.

Yep, the Author does want an answer.

Yep, and again, as I stated previously, "the answer is still there, in the long answer, that helps the author, which if the author would read it, then they would find it."


4) This goes back to my outburst at you from sometime ago. When you answer a guy with a complexity that overwhelms the original question, it makes you look like you want to display your mental prowess, not answer the guy's question. To me, mental prowess means the ability to answer the guy so that he is satisfied with your answer, not perplexed by it. To me, mental prowess means the ability to focus on the guy and his question, not potential other people who may or may not be there or their collective potential desires and not the guy's potential desire for more knowledge.

Impressions. Now you are talking about impressions and perceptions. "Mental prowess" like an " interscholastic feline".

I understand what you are saying, but you completely missing my objective here in answering the authors, which is the same as yours except with a different approach.


I am not going to tone down my desire to inform because folk find reading and learning to be inconvenient.

Although, I have more and more been giving "cliff note answers" and then hyperlink referencing to a more thorough explanation of the subject matter.


5) The ability to answer the question succinctly rather than with an outburst of verbal diarrhea is actually a good thing.

I agree, at times, it is important to be concise.

Although, obviously, we disagree on what is considered to be verbal "diarrhea", which is quite fine and an interesting word picture. :cheerful:

 

[dieselplower]

I dont see any reason why a person should dumb down their answer so that a simpleton can understand it. 99% of questions can be answered without even being asked. "DO A SEARCH". The answer is all there already.

 

[crsublette]

A little harsh Diesel, but, sorry, I had to " like it "



Oh Johnny... Don't Huff and pufff and blow my house down.

I understand where you are going and, sincerely, I do appreciate the concern and feedback. :banana: :claphands:

 

[dieselplower]

A little harsh Diesel, but, sorry, I had to " like it "



Oh Johnny... Don't Huff and pufff and blow my house down.

I understand where you are going and, sincerely, I do appreciate the concern and feedback. :banana: :claphands:

Possibly harsh on a Garden Pond Forum but tame on a diesel truck performance forum with over 100,000 members.

 

[crsublette]

Possibly harsh on a Garden Pond Forum but tame on a diesel truck performance forum with over 100,000 members.

I could just imagine.

 

[JohnHuff]

No problem, it's a free world. Diarrhea all you want!

1) You have one (1, I, uno,) person asking you a question.

Indeed, but One person asking a question does not mean others were not interested in the answer to the same question.

No such thing as "one being the loniest number" on a public forum.


2) Your job would be to answer his question in a way so that he can understand it.

Check out the hyperlink I previously referenced. This particular author was helped quite fine and got his questions answered including many other threads where I have contributed. My long replies have lead to many successful encounters.

If they do not understand, then they ask a question and my following answer would then tend to be much shorter.

Most often it is not what I write they do not understand. Most often it is a concept in which I reference that they do not understand. So, then, a question is asked and it answered within a much shorter reply.


3) 3) Forget about "Guest" readers. They are not the ones asking your question. There maybe 1 million, there maybe no Guest readers. If they have a question, they will ask you of it. Your primary duty is to the person who asked you the question, not potential guest speakers who may or may not be there.
4) Forget about the guy's "potential" desire. Who knows what he wants. He may want this, he may want the world, he may want nothing. It's not up to you to decide what he potentially wants. Answer his question.

It is also not up to you decided what he potentially does not want.

Yep, the Author does want an answer.

Yep, and again, as I stated previously, "the answer is still there, in the long answer, that helps the author, which if the author would read it, then they would find it."


4) This goes back to my outburst at you from sometime ago. When you answer a guy with a complexity that overwhelms the original question, it makes you look like you want to display your mental prowess, not answer the guy's question. To me, mental prowess means the ability to answer the guy so that he is satisfied with your answer, not perplexed by it. To me, mental prowess means the ability to focus on the guy and his question, not potential other people who may or may not be there or their collective potential desires and not the guy's potential desire for more knowledge.

Impressions. Now you are talking about impressions and perceptions. "Mental prowess" like an " interscholastic feline".

I understand what you are saying, but you completely missing my objective here in answering the authors, which is the same as yours except with a different approach.


I am not going to tone down my desire to inform because folk find reading and learning to be inconvenient.

Although, I have more and more been giving "cliff note answers" and then hyperlink referencing to a more thorough explanation of the subject matter.


5) The ability to answer the question succinctly rather than with an outburst of verbal diarrhea is actually a good thing.

I agree, at times, it is important to be concise.

Although, obviously, we disagree on what is considered to be verbal "diarrhea", which is quite fine and an interesting word picture. :cheerful:

 

[crsublette]

No problem, it's a free world. Diarrhea all you want!

Very nice John. You just huffed and puffed my house down. :bye2: :bye2:

It's all good. I still love ya man. :blueflower: :cheerful: :claphands:

 

[Fishylove]

A little harsh Diesel, but, sorry, I had to " like it".

Ha! :biggrin: I was gonna say the same thing! Lol. Just in a.... Eehem slightly nicer way LOL

And as you all know! :cheerful: I am guilty of "vomiting info" also. It's just as I'm answering a question and I think of things that go along with what they are asking, I try to incorporate that into my answer. Yes it can get a bit long, but hopefully will save the poster a step or two in the long run :shrug: