20,741
edits
Forum communication: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→The quality and timeliness of feedback
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
While the community have been providing a way for end-users to get involved in regularly testing FlightGear ''pre-releases'' provided via the [[FlightGear Build Server]], very few users seem interested in getting involved in this, and even fewer people are actually providing bug reports via the issue tracker, unfortunately, so far. | While the community have been providing a way for end-users to get involved in regularly testing FlightGear ''pre-releases'' provided via the [[FlightGear Build Server]], very few users seem interested in getting involved in this, and even fewer people are actually providing bug reports via the issue tracker, unfortunately, so far. | ||
This is why you need to be the developers' eyes and ears - they cannot see what you're seeing, and they cannot know what you have done. | This is why you need to be the developers' eyes and ears - they cannot see what you're seeing, and they cannot know what you have done. | ||
== About making an effort to communicate == | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|Aiming for proper spelling is also a matter of politeness. In the age of spell-checking capable browsers, leaving all your spelling mistakes in is in essence signaling 'I don't take the time to compose a decent post'. | |||
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=213581#p213581 | |||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Sky to Dark at Night (was: Eye Candy & performance Issue</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>Thorsten</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Fri Jun 27</nowiki> | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
| often people are interested in getting the word out over communicating. It's the equivalent to always talking and never listening in a face to face situation. And this leads back to Dunning-Kruger - since they think they already know everything relevant, why should they listen? It rather should be anyone else who needs to listen.<br/> | |||
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=213725#p213725 | |||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Sky to Dark at Night (was: Eye Candy & performance Issue</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>Thorsten</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Sun Jun 29</nowiki> | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|correct spelling shows politeness. Nobody expects perfect spelling. But if you fail to demonstrate that you've put at least some effort into your post, why should anyone make an effort and read it? Or even answer it? I reckon for the forum to be useful, one should aim at being ''understood'', rather than just getting the word out.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
Also, if you want to reach the experts -- you can be sure they read ''a lot'' each day. Since reading a text with poor spelling is much harder, you chances of getting heard decrease rapidly. | |||
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=213699#p213699 | |||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Sky to Dark at Night (was: Eye Candy & performance Issue</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>radi</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Sat Jun 28</nowiki> | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
{{FGCquote | |||
|I have to agree with the other guys. I'm not sure if "polite" is the best word to use, but it shows that someone is making an effort. If you make the effort to spell correctly and use terms correctly then you're likely to make the effort to listen and analyze the information you're given in return.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
When posts are written with a lot of spelling and grammatical errors it makes the readers wonder just what person they're dealing with. Fine, if a person has dyslexia it typically shows actually, but if they don't then it really does come off as someone who just don't care about language and therefore not about communication. So why go through the effort of communicating with them if they don't care.<br/> | |||
<br/> | |||
I'm not saying style is more important than substance, just that some people have encountered enough poor style covering poor substance that they react when they see poor style again; because statistically it's likely to contain poor substance. It's a "tricky" situation: You either make an effort to try to communicate with people in a way that furthers the discussion or you double-down and do it your way. In the case of discussing technology language is very important and we have a "neutral" one that everyone can use, just as everyone can use neutral and proper English. I see no reason not to make an effort to do so. I think we have enough crappy social media outlets for trite low-brow commentary. | |||
|{{cite web |url=http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?p=213750#p213750 | |||
|title=<nowiki>Re: Sky to Dark at Night (was: Eye Candy & performance Issue</nowiki> | |||
|author=<nowiki>Lydiot</nowiki> | |||
|date=<nowiki>Sun Jun 29</nowiki> | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
== When the frustration kicks in == | == When the frustration kicks in == | ||