* Reporting Issues

[tatewise]

John Cardinal has recently posted his GedSite: Reporting Issues guidelines that seem admirable.

I have added a version for FHUG members at info:forums_posting_guidelines|> Forums Posting Guidelines as part of the info:forums|> Forums Usage Tips.

What do you think?

[ColeValleyGirl]

"If you contact us and ask for help, please follow the first expert's advice, and be wary of input from others."

This works if there's a main support person, but are you really suggesting that if the first person to respond is talking rubbish, nobody else should be listened to?

[BillH]

I agree with Helen that the first person isn't always the one with good advice. Also, I have had many postings where more than one person gives good advice. I don't think it is a good idea to tell people to only listen to one person and ignore the others.

[tatewise]

Yes, I too wondered about that one.
Some of the points raised within its details about communicating information that we cannot gather, and only making changes that we request, are worthy of inclusion.
Can you suggest how it could be reworded to better express those guidelines?

What about the following?

• If you post here asking for help, please follow the advice provided.
  
  The challenges associated with resolving an issue are mostly related to communication. We need to understand the issue, and to understand several details about your use of the program and your computer. We will guide you through the process of providing us with that information, because we cannot gather it ourselves. Only make changes that are requested, as other changes may corrupt our understanding of the details, and creates a moving target.

[BillH]

Mike,

This sounds good to me.

Thanks!

[mjashby]

I believe the key to getting any 'advisory guidelines' appropriate and accurate is that they have to clearly reflect the level of authority and responsibility the 'advisory body' carries. It is difficult for FHUG guidelines to be prescriptive about information requirements except where a User's question relates entirely to software installation/failure, when it is usually necessary to have some basic facts about the User's hardware and software setup. Most Forum questions actually relate to software functionality and any additional information requirements are therefore normally determined by the (lack of initial) clarity in defining the issue.

Any Guidelines provided also need to be clear in explaining that help offered/provided on this Forum comes primarily from other Users - not Calico Pie Officials - and will be based on their own knowledge and experience; so cannot be regarded as definitive or 'official'. It may also be that, in contrast to John Cardinal's stance, some advice/comment made by a single individual (first responder) may not be entirely unbiased because it can easily be coloured by personal experiences and/or preferred ways of working.

John Cardinal's Guidelines are clearly written from his personal stance as the software designer/developer; and therefore the one who should know better than anyone else how his own product has been designed to work; and are warning against 3rd-Party advice, no matter how well meant.

Mervyn

[tatewise]

Thank you Mervyn.
Did you see my proposed rewrite of the first guideline?
I felt that the guidelines were reasonable for both reporting bugs and requesting advice about functionality.
Yes, the point about making it clear that advice will come from other FHUG members and not Calico Pie is excellent.
It is not clear whether you think the idea of such guidelines is worth pursuing or not.

[LornaCraig]

I agree with Mervyn's point that advice given by FHUG members shouldn't be portrayed as definitive or 'official' in the way that John Cardinal's advice about his own software is. It's also important that no FHUG member should feel discouraged from contributing to a discussion because they fear they are not 'expert' enough. And we don't want to give the impression that if people don't follow advice exactly they will be reprimanded!

Having said that, I wonder how many people would actually read and follow all the advice in the proposed guidelines. There is already a 'Please read before posting' notice by Jane in a prominent place at the top of the General Usage forum. The proposed new guidelines are quite a lot longer and therefore less likely to be read in full, even if people see them.

[Gowermick]

I’m with Lorna on this one! Very few people bother reading guidelines (or Manuals come to that). How often in life have we heard the espression RBM - Read the Bloody Manual.

Proof of this is shown by how often Miketate has had to point out to a poster that the answer to a particular question was already available? His phrase Have you read ... is seen more often than not.

[David2416]

The idea is good but the responses raise some issues. Perhaps an additional Forum called perhaps Expert Advice on FH.

The guidelines don't seem entirely appropriate to questions like "Which pdf" or "Start over?" where the poster may be seeking other's opinions, they are appropriate with issues with say FMP hints, Out of Mermory issues or the involved technical problems which FH users sometimes experience which some clearly expert and dedicated users are helping to resolve. In the latter cases such guidelines would I'm sure be helpful.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm with Mervyn and Lorna -- a user forum like FHUG is a totally different kettle of fish to a product developer supporting his own product. And formalising the process of getting help doesn't seem (to me) to fit well with what a user group is -- even if people would read the guidelines.

[tatewise]

It sounds like the weight of opinion is to remove those guidelines, as they are often not relevant, and would not be read anyway,
I am happy with that outcome - it was only a bit of kite flying.