Does FAQ reading failure bother you?

So I'm clicking around the forum today, and I start browsing around in the status check forums. At first it was amusing, but then it started to get on my nerves. . . and I'm not even an editor who has to reply to people. It seemed as though 80% of the status checks did not following the FAQ or posting guidelines. Why?

Is this normal or has this just become common as of late?

/promises she's not anal retentive

That's usual in the net, not only here. Since the beginning of Usenet, people seem to think that it is easier to ask then to look for informations yourself.

[Historical mode]
I remember the times of the Fido-Net. Newsgroups were synchronized once a day between mailboxes, and due to the tree-architecture it could take weeks until your posting reached everybody. You quickly learned that reading FAQs and following rules speeds up things a lot in that days. Apart from that, access was limited to people with technical knowledge, because setting up an account was really difficult.
[/Historical mode]

freemason said:

It seemed as though 80% of the status checks did not following the FAQ or posting guidelines. Why?

Is this normal or has this just become common as of late?

Click to expand...

I don't know why. Maybe they are just lazy. Or maybe they are stupid. I don't know.

But you should see the stuff we get to review. Did you think they would read how to suggest a site in the correct way. Forget it. Just pick a random category, put as many commercial hype in the description as possible and also add a list with as many as possible keywords. And than after 2 days start complaining your site isn't listed yet.

Does FAQ reading failure bother you?

Click to expand...

Not really - like many editors here I have a stock list of answers to cut and paste which take seconds.

What does seriously irritate me is the amount of untruths told here. The most common one is when the site was last submitted followed by denial that they submitted more than once or submitted mirrors, redirects, vanity URLs, and other spam. We know they are being economical with the truth. They know they are being economical with the truth. Editors get abrupt as, like anyone else, they don't appreciate being lied to, then people get the idea we are rude, ignorant, unhelpful, and arrogant. But the skin thickens very quickly.