On another thread that had meandered about as far from its original subject as it is possible to get, there was a plea to get back to woodworking discussions. I’m sympathetic, and I offered the suggestion that the complainants ask some interesting woodworking questions. I was serious. I am even sympathetic to the statements at the end of that thread that I have been a Critic more than a woodworking contributor.
The reason I have maundered recently (and I suspect this is true of some other regular reader/contributors) is that there have been precious few questions that haven’t been answered a dozen time on Knots. How many discussions of left-vs-right, or shaper vs. router table, or how to avoid finish blotch, or whether a Biesemeyer fence is better than a Unifence can excite fresh insights? I strongly believe that those questions are important to woodworkers and deserve the most expert answers that can be offered. But I equally strongly believe that the most expert answers have been offered many times over.
I humbly offer offer this suggestion to the Tribunal of People Who Determine What Goes on at Knots: Gather some clever people to go over the entirety of Knots–blather, wisdom, and all–and assemble a “Best of Knots” (guess where I got this idea) section in the form of Frequently Asked Questions. That would get the very best answers to the standard questions on an easily retrievable record. Newcomers could see all of the pros and cons, the choices, the tradeoffs, presented in one place at one time, rather than waiting weeks for responses to come in. Further questions could then be asked on the main board along with other new stuff.
Presented with new questions, the experts might contribute more frequently to Knots.
Interesting questions lead to interesting discussions. I urge all contributors, whatever your level of woodworking expertise or interest, to ask interesting questions.
Replies
Donald,
While I can appreciate the fact that you may become rather bored with the thought of seeing the same questions asked over and over again, I would offer to you, as being a very new "member" of this forum, to reconsider this recommendation or at least understand that while it initially may cut down on the number of recurrent posts, it may not end them in its entirety.
Let me explain.
I would not mind in the least a "FAQ" archive to go through with my questions for this group. However, if I felt in the least that the postings were out of date or that there was a chance that others may have used, tried, found another way of doing something, etc, I would certainly not hesitate to ask the question again.
I understand that as an accomplished and long-time woodworker many of these post may seem trivial to you, but there are quite a few of us "rookies" who are not only trying to learn this great skill, but also learn it correctly.
Just my thoughts... For what they are worth...
Thanks!
RR
Rookie-
I'm sorry that I led you to believe that beginner questions are boring or unimportant. Indeed, I tried to covey my belief that they are the most important ones. My point was that there is already a wealth of information available on those questions somewhere in the Knots archives.
The trouble is, there is no easy way to search for the answers. Questions are asked in different forms; a thread changes direction in midstream; directly related information may be filed in another category. That is why I suggested a group of clever people go over the entire archive to do the sorting. The current search engine is not up to the task.
I also stressed that questions not answered to the questioner's satisfaction in the FAQs could then be asked on the main board. They would then be fresh, new questions, and questioners and answerers and observers would all be enthusiastic.
Your thoughts are worth a lot, and I hope you will keep asking questions.
Donald,
I apologize for misunderstanding your previous message. An inherent problem with this form of communication, I believe.
I agree with you that it is hard to search this site in its current form for previously asked questions. But I try to do it anyway. I also agree that it would be nice to eliminate within a thread any off topic responses. A daunting task awaits someone.
All in all, though, this is a great resource and I am glad I have access to it.
Thank you to all who contribute to this form and make woodworking more pleasurable and rewarding to me!
RR
Donald,
I'm glad you are putting this forward and in a new thread. I was about to jump in on the other thread to comment about the continual commonality of topics in new posts. I think a "best of ..." folder is a great idea.
There is a search function here on Knots. Part of the cramped feeling people get here on this BBS is the seemingly overwhelming number of threads through one has to wade. If more people would use the search before posting, it might lighten the load and free up some screen space for more important topics, like, oh, which do you prefer for opening paint cans, Sorby or Stanley chisels?
Scott
Now, now, Scott, you and I both know that only Japanese chisels work for opening paint cans; it must be the hollow grind.
". . .and only the stump or fishy part of him remained."
Green Gables: A Contemplative Companion to Fujino Township
I would like to suggest that far more use is made of the Cafe for topics not strictly WW -- that, after all, is what it was intended for.
I don't agree with the issue of repetitive questions, they may be old to us but they're new to the person asking. If you see, for the umpteenth time, a new thread on something old and it bothers you, then don't go there -- it's your choice after all.
I often think, when I see a reply like 'Search the archives, you'll find etc., etc.' that it probably took as much time to type as answering the question.
IMO, it's all part of a welcoming attitude to newcomers to the board.
As a "regular" contributor to various discussions I have some ideas that I think would greatly improve the site.
It might be very helpful to have a FWW guru reading the threads (certainly a job from hell). I don't think anyone should screen postings other than those that are obscene, vulgar or totally off-based. Rather I would suggest that that person could cite relevant articles or books that Taunton has published (especially regarding which table saw or which router). I also would have that individual refer to really good threads that previously discussed the same/similar issues. As such, the FWW person would simply write "See FWW Issue #xxx for the article entitled 'Everything you need to know about dodah's and whatamagigs'. Please refer also to thread yyyy.y."
It would be ideal if BBS participants did that themselves, especially if they posted a similar question that was answered thoroughly and completely.
It would likewise help if participants, once they have learned something, to actually answer a question themselves, rather than waiting for somebody else to do it.
Unfortunately, most people learn by repetition and therein have to hear/read the information several/many times before they feel comfortable trying to explain it to somebody else.
And even among those who know "how to" will not likely have the a grasp of some very basic, applicable, conceptual principles. As such, "pet" theories and "folklore" are presented that, in my opinion, have little basis in reality. This creates a dielectic that is both fun for individuals like me and hopefully more informative because readers can weigh the various sides presented.
I just wish more people were concerned with general concepts/patterns and fundamental issues rather than the particulars of this or that species, this or that tool, etc..
NIEMIEC1
This is a forum. It's a place for people to exchange ideas and hold discussions. It's not a didatic learning center. Although it certainly is a learning center.
It is human nature that a first time poster, or a person in a bit of trouble comes to a place like this and says, "Help, I'm in a bind,. Can someone help me out. or, Help, I'd like to understand something better." That person is not likely to patiently wade through a list of "relevant papers." .That person is here for interchange with others. A person who had the inclination to look up the answer would not be "calling" in the first place.
It is very disconcerting, when one is in a bind, or just in a questioning mode to settle down long enough to even follow directions to the relevant material. It is much more likely that a person under those circumstances looks to "experts" or to others who have successfully solved the same problems to give a step by step solution and words of encouragement.
It is a common characteristic of these kinds of forums that the same questions get asked over and over. It is a common feature that long-time members find themselves answering the same kind of questions.
It's unfortunate that a few people here resent the nature of this place and want discussions to be more meaningful only to them. I hear your suggestion more like a "children should be seen and not heard" demand and your idea of homework assignments. Want a more meaningful discussion? Start one. But don't try to deny the interactional nature of the forum. And don't force your recipe for interchange on others.
Rich.
Edited 8/9/2002 1:25:50 AM ET by Rich Rose
Sir:
You must have a real chip on your shoulder or a hair growing in the wrong place because you apparently enjoy your irrational rants that are both personally degrading and totally incorrect. You take what I have written and infer thinking that was not in any way expressed or intended, and then go off on some bizarre tangential jag.
A primary reason for me recommending FWW journal articles or books was so that the hosts of this site might provide a service to this forum's participants and because I consider their publications worthy of increased distribution. If they might be able to profit or offset the costs associated with the service of hosting this forum, it sounds like a win-win situation to me.
It is apparent that you are unwilling to expend any of your time wading through previous threads or publications and that you expect to have your questions answered immediately. It sounds to me like you feel that your time is more important than anyone else's and that the contributing experts should accomodate your slighest whim. I am glad that others are willing to research previous threads and value the opportunity to read well prepared published materials.
As to the rest of what you wrote, I consider it mostly irrational, illogical blatherings that contributes nothing positive to this discussion. You apparently espouse the free and open exchange of ideas and then immediately criticize and deride individuals who happen to express ideas different from yours.
As a newbie to this forum, I can confidently say I enjoy it all..even the redundancies. However, I'm also learning quickly that the topic is less important than who responded to the issue at hand. Most of us are mature enough to seperate out the slimballs from the experts. To me it dosen't matter if the discussion is about #2 pencils, if you and rich, sagin, donald, joseph, etc. are in there...I'm gonna enjoy and learn.
This thread is focused on what is the best way to teach. The first recorded discussion on that topic was in 350 BC between Isocrates and Plato...Plato lost but the discussion has continued since then. We all know its the teacher that really makes the difference....and so it is here too.
So yes, I would like more fundamentals...and more problem solving...and more web links so I can research further a specific topic...and FAQ's...but the most important thing is to keep on keeping on. My 2 cents.
As a former and very excited newbie, now an occasional lurker, and someday (hopefully) a pro, my process for using this forum to get answers to my questions has usually been as follows:
1) Search the messages for my topic/question to see if it has already been asked/answered. (My biggest complaint: The "new" Knots forum search engine doesn't seem nearly as capable as the one under the old system. Before Prospero, I was able to get a lot more information from Knots, via the searches, than I can now.)
2) If I don't find anything via the search, I post the question in the appropriate folder (not because I want to "color inside of the lines," but because I think my question is more likely to get a response when it's in the right category).
3) Follow any links to previous threads that I wasn't able to find on my own (whoever said it was correct: links are so much better than "search the archives" responses).
4) Compare the advice I'm given to that I've found elsewhere, then give it a try on my own.
5) Respond with note indicating whether or not the answer helped me out. (Even offering a "thanks" once in a while.)
6) If I see the question come up again, and I'm confident that what I learned will help rather than hinder, pass the information along -- even if that's just inserting a link to a previous response or alternate site that does a better job explaining the answer than I could.
Of course, that's just me. I'm probably overly polite, overly logical and underly emotional. And, as I said, I don't get to Knots that often anymore, so I can't/won't offer myself as the rulemaker. But the above steps seem to work... I've always gotten good information here, whenever I needed it. ("You know who you are," he says in his most abbreviated, Academy Award-winner 'thank you' speech.)
DavidHmmm... the garden or the workshop today?
Donald, interesting thread and a good idea. Many other discussion groups have a FAQ or monthly "quote file"and it's not a bad idea to provide that resource if people want it. Yet, asking a question should never be discouraged nor written off by telling someone to "go look in the FAQ" only (which I know you did not say, but I wanted to reitorate).
I think Stanley has a good idea too as long as the FWW person doesn't over do it and it doesn't stifle the discussion atmosphere. I can't see this happening anytime soon simply because you barely have my time here as it is--and I don't have time to provide a FW ref for a lot of the questions though often they come to mind. Still, it may be a good resource and I'll pass it along as a suggestion.
Tim
____________
Tim Sams
Associate Editor, Fine Woodworking
Knots Moderator
Edited 8/9/2002 11:47:50 AM ET by Tim Sams
It's an excellent idea. As someone who has been hanging around Knots a long time, I know how unexciting it is to see yet another "Which Tablesaw?" post. Like you, I don't blame anyone for asking or mean to suggest the questions and answers aren't important, but I always have the sense that there must be a better way that will (i) allow people to access historical information more quickly, and (ii) invigorate the discussion.
The main obstacle is that we can't expect Taunton Press to pour any more resources into what surely amounts to a money-losing proposition already. So any changes must be simple and not require much time on Taunton's part.
How about this: under the Tools heading, we create subheadings for a few main tools such as table saws, jointers, bandsaws. Maybe it wouldn't be too much work if everytime a new thread (not a new post within another thread) is made on table saws, that thread is moved by the Sysop into the table saw folder. This would at least tend to consolidate the discussion and make it more likely that one tablesaw discussion could cross-germinate another. Over time the folder would also become an incredible resource on every opinion under the sun regarding table saws.
I'm afraid anything more labor-intensive might require some modification of the forum that would allow Taunton to make money from it, such as selling tool advertisements. Personally I'd be in favor of that, especially, if it allowed improvements in other areas, but I know others are strongly opposed.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled