Most members that have been around for a while in HA.org have surely seen that more often than we would wish, a newbie comes around asking a question that a quick skim through the FAQ/Wiki or a simple search would have solved. Also, they often come violating a rule of the TOS (generally #8), and have to be pointed to the Terms of Service page. More rarely (like today), a special one comes double-, triple- or quadruple-posting a question, off-topic and in terrible, slangish English.
I have a few suggestions (some have probably mentioned before) in increasing order of drasticness to improve newbie control & management and make the forum more friendly to both newbies and senior members.

1.- Put a notice in large, attention-drawing letters on the "Post new topic" screen for the first 'x' posts/days of a new user that encourage reading the FAQs/Wikis and using the search function before posting a question, as well as having a look the TOS; perhaps with some visible links to them. Reason: The importance of reading the FAQ/TOS and using the search function is probably underemphasized and also possibly not visible enough. Probable newbie thoughts: "Terms of Service? Bah, surely some boring stuff in some kind of legal jargon that nobody reads anyway. They probably have it just for legal purposes" "FAQ? They must have only dumb questions like "what is MP3?" and stuff. My question about VBR/joint stereo/etc is surely unfrequent enough." "Wiki? WTFIT? Knowledgebase project? Huh? Scary advanced stuff!"
1.5.- In addition to the encouragement to read FAQ/Wiki/TOS and use Search, threaten the new user with probable harsh responses by the members if the question shows that s/he didn't do his/er homework. Reason: Fear sometimes works.
2.- Make a forced tour through the TOS page and FAQs to complete the registration process. (This might be already implemented, I don't know. I don't remember having seen something like this when I registered two years ago). Reason: Some newbies are lazy and will want to get "straight to the point".
2.5.- Tour makes you manually tick every TOS point to ensure you've read them. Reason: Some newbies are VERY lazy and won't read even what is put in front of them.
3.- First 'x' posts by a new user automatically go into a "Newbie" forum not visible at the portal until a moderator or a senior member (or group of specially designated senior members) has a look at it and, if deemed appropriate, promotes it to the general forum. Incidentally, a moderator could demote a "well-standing member's" post to the newbie forum if the answer could be easily found on the FAQ or search function. j/k.

Actually, the situation with the FAQ is worse than this. In a standard Bulletin Board, the "FAQ" link always lead to a BB FAQ : how to register, how to post, how to search, lost password, etc... Why would people think that HA's FAQ is different ?

I once saw a very good solution in another forum, I don't remember which one.

Clicking the "new post" link lead to an intermediate page that said "Before asking a question, make sure that it is not already answered on the forum or in the FAQ".

Then, three buttons were available :

• Take me to the FAQ
• Take me to the search form
• I've read the FAQ and searched the forum, but couldn't find any answer, take me to the new post form.

Sounds to me like a good idea, if it were limited to starting new threads rather than appearing every time with any kind of posting (like replying).

Maybe you're talking about afterdawn. It looks like this:
It'd be a good idea to add something similar - like you suggested - here.

Good idea. See my last post.

IMO most likely this will make things worse than better, because it will encourage some people to response in a harsh manner leading to things between unnecessary unfriendlyness and flames.


Good idea(s), but I don't see a way how to make sure that people read the TOS/FAQs instead of searching for the "By clicking here I confirm that I've read and understood the TOS + FAQs"...


This would mean much work for moderation/administration with questionable outcome. It's only a minority of new members' posts that are that lazy-newbie-like, so a change like this isn't justified IMO.

Well, just look at how your teachers used to check that you understood things. It's simple enough to give a little TOS quiz with yes/no questions to the new members and automatically check the answers. Of course it will make it more annoying for the users who want to sign up, and actually i don't like the idea myself.... but hey, it's one possible answer to your problem.

Terms of Service should be renamed to Forum Rules,
because original name suggests legal information.
(which it is in part, but which discourages nbies from reading it)

I think this would be an ideal solution to try first. Of course, this should only apply to new topics and not replies in existing threads.

The only downside I could foresee would be complaints from regulars who do use search and reference the FAQ before posting a new question, having to go through another "layer" to reach a message-post window every time. But then again what's the ratio of "new topics" to "replies" for most members...probably leaning strongly toward the latter I would think. I know that I rarely start a new thread here, generally finding an existing thread relevant to an interest I have, if not finding an answer by doing a search "across the board".

So I think the "new topic screening question" may solve more problems than it creates. And like with diagnosing/solving technical problems, one thing should be tried first, and only if the problem still exists should something else then be done. This function seems easy to implement, as well.

I think it's often hard to expect a new member to use certain functions by their own prerogative because internet forums tend to be permeated with repetitive, unrelated links many times (more so on ad-ridden forums), the "too many street signs" effect, and new users in turn feel the almost instinctive desire on any forum to skip past what may be irrelevant, along the way missing things that are quite relevant here (TOS, FAQ, forum search).

That's why I suggested to implement this feature for the first, say, 5-10 posts by a new user (a number that could be tweaked at will)... I would expect that after a few of this "slaps" the user will learn or abandon the forums. After all, I would daresay that a great deal of new members only register to post a few questions that have been itching them and seldom become active regulars. We've got almost 9000 members, how many actually post once in a while? 100? 200? On a related side note, I think it would be interesting to have some general member statistics, like what proportion of the users have made 0 posts (quite a few, after browsing the member list a little), actually visit the forum or post once in a while, etc.


That's why I suggested that they tick every TOS point, that is 14 times. They could always click all the boxes without reading them, but if this fails too, then the only solution would be the extremely awkward and annoying quiz/test solution ErikS proposed.


Well, I actually proposed it in a jokingly way. I also think it would indeed be interpreted by some newbie-hunting members as an encouragement to jump on newbies' throats.


That's why I put it as the most drastic one. However, allowing some senior members of confidence to promote the newbies' posts to the general forums would ease the moderation work considerably, since I'd say there always is a regular with good enough criteria and a few minutes of time to read newbies' new posts, which aren't that many, anyway.


Agreed. "Terms of Service" does indeed sound too 'legalish' to be actually viewed by newbies of their own accord. Most TOS of other sites are indeed awful texts written in ALL-CAPS legalese that seek to formalize common sense to avoid suings.

Overly strict interpretations of the TOS (especially #8) are no good either. Here's a piece of it...

"If you, as a user, make a claim about the quality or general ability of an encoder/decoder/etc to perform in a given situation which happens to be contrary to pre-existing data..."

I was jumped on once for saying that ogg sounded "flat" (that is...no apparent hike of any part of the frequency spectrum). It does to me, and I did state that as an opinion (vs fact). To further, it would appear that I can't say "use ogg...it will give you great quality encodes" without mentioning the errata (may boost high frequencies, may have pre-echo problems, may have a hard to pronounce extension, etc.). I refuse to do that everytime I champion ogg (or any other format). I will leave that up to whoever for the pro's & con's research.

If I say to someone "Don't use a lossy encoder for it may remove some data that you might have heard with a lossless format". Do I have to provide proof everytime in the same post?..or should it be assumed that everyone has a certain base level of knowledge here, making further explanation unnecessary?

I see more and more posts that contain "read TOS #xx" somewhere in the body (mostly in regards to #8). It's as irritating as "Use the Search!" responses with no solution given (thankfully this has subsided). I appreciate efforts to keep HA focused, but one must keep in mind that going too far will weed out as many veterans as it would noobs.

Here's a thought...maybe HA could provide a "opinion" template so that no one mistakes them for fact.

xen-uno

IIRC you didn't clarify what you meant with "flat" then, as you've done now. If "flat" doesn't describe frequency response, it can mean e.g.
- below the proper pitch; "she sang flat last night"
- lacking variety in shading; "a flat unshaded painting"
- lacking stimulating characteristics; uninteresting; "a bland little drama"; "a flat joke"
(examples from http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/flat

So I think the problem in this case was mainly a misunderstanding. Unfortunately we often underestimate the difference between RL and internet communication which is the reason for these things to happen.


"... which happens to be contrary to pre-existing data ..." should give an answer to this.


You're right. This has been discussed before several times. It's necessary but probably not easy to find a good compromise. But I also see an attitude problem here. If someone who has never contributed anything asks a question, IMHO he doesn't have a god given right to get an immediate competent answer. Instead it's a privilege to get help for free, and it would be a sign of appreciation and thankfulness if (s)he would read the rules and the FAQ and do a search before starting a thread. As long as it's done in a friendly way, refering people to the TOS, FAQs or the search, even without giving an answer, is all right IMO.

I don't see a need for it. Opinions are based on reasons. The reasons can be (provable) facts (in this case rule #8 applies) and/or subjective (no prove possible & necessary, e.g. music taste). In both cases it's quite useless to post opinions without the reasons being known. (E.g. "My favourite band is ..." without any other information is completely useless.)