13
$\begingroup$

Naming no names, but please can we have a ban on using lmgtfy.com in comments. I appreciate how frustrating it can be that users post questions without having done the most basic Google search. But pointing them at lmgtfy.com is just snide and unbecoming of an august company such as ourselves.

Just downvote, vote to close and then imagine yourself interviewing the offender for a job at your university in years to come.

Later: doh, I showed insufficient effort in checking for duplicates. This was discussed in Policy on lmgtfy links. Oh well, it probably doesn't hurt to jog memories.

$\endgroup$
12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I thought there was such a ban. $\endgroup$
    – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 15:51
  • $\begingroup$ @dmckee I think SO bans it but I don't think it's system-wide. $\endgroup$
    – tpg2114
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 15:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5226/2451 Related: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5033/2451 $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic Mod
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 15:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Point taken.... $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 15:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Jimnosperm Don't fret it too much--we all get frustrated from time to time[1]--just try not to put too much of your emotion into the on-site content. I sometime just walk away from the site for a few hours. [1] Well, maybe John doesn't: his onsite persona has the patience of a saint. A good example to all and we appreciate it. $\endgroup$
    – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Mod
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If I may add a dissenting opinion; the mother meta post seems more written for things that are googleable but not immediately apparent from doing so. If we all remember the "Do Fire Tornados Exist?" question, that was answered by typing "fire tornado" into google and getting pictures of them as the first hit. I think such blatant laziness should be punished by a lmgtfy link. We post the wiki articles, we post google search links, we do everything but use lmgtfy. Does the extra step really make so much difference? $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And quite frankly, voting to close a question as insufficient effort is just as humiliating as posting a lmgtfy link. They both say "this was easy and you could have done it yourself. Waste your own time next time" $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not always good at working out what people will and won't find upsetting, but at least my VTC pointed the OP to a post that explains in detail what we expect before posting a question. A lmgtfy link feels to me like just saying f**k off. $\endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay. I'll give you mine was more brash. Both still say f**k off. But your way says it in the politest possible manner (that is, politest while still saying f**k off) $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, mine was constructive because it explained exactly what is required to avoid being told to to go forth and multiply in the future. $\endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ I don't feel qualified to argue how people interpret messages. I merely speculate that being told what is required to avoid being told things like this indicates one hasn't met requirements. Logically, if you haven't met the requirements to avoid being told something, directing you to these requirements must be a form of telling you that something. It's a polite and constructive form. But the way I see it, it still tells them to "go forth and multiply" (I like the way you put that). But again, I'm not qualified to argue this, so it's best I drop the issue and accept the views of the majority $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jimnosperm I really don't agree that both VTC and "lmgtfy-ing" give off the same vibe... at all. $\endgroup$
    – Danu
    Commented Apr 12, 2015 at 10:11

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
15
$\begingroup$

Come on John, haven't you done a google search? :)

Seriously though, as Qmechanic linked to in the comments on your question, the "be nice" policy basically tells people to not to it.

The post on mother meta says that banning it will just incur performance penalties and instead you should leave a comment telling that person they should be nicer. They take the approach that people being disrespectful will just be disrespectful in other ways, and so banning the links doesn't really help anything.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 19
    $\begingroup$ Moderators! tpg is being mean to me!!!! $\endgroup$
    – John Rennie
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:09
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ The "official" "policy" is that lmgtfy links aren't banned if they're funny enough :-P (seriously though, the rationale behind banning them is that they're considered rude, but if you're not using it to be insulting, it's not a problem) $\endgroup$
    – David Z Mod
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ Ouch the irony. $\endgroup$
    – Derek 朕會功夫
    Commented Apr 23, 2015 at 14:55
2
$\begingroup$

There's never any need to use LMGTFY in a comment.

The comment

[LMGTFY]

translates as

I am (please check all that apply):
[  ] annoyed,
[  ] frustrated
[  ] stressed,
[  ] an asshole,
[  ] having a bad day.

The answer to your question can easily be found using a search engine so please do that. If you can't understand what you find, or why it answers your question, please ask a more specific question about the parts you don't understand.

The commenter's mood or disposition are irrelevant to the question and likely to change, rendering the comment partially obsolete. Therfore, they should be omitted, leaving:

The answer to your question can easily be found using a search engine so please do that. If you can't understand what you find, or why it answers your question, please ask a more specific question about the parts you don't understand.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If the commenter checks "an asshole", I don't think that's likely to change anytime soon. Plus, I don't think they'd be concerned about whether their comment would be obsolete later. They are, after all, an asshole $\endgroup$
    – Jim
    Commented Apr 22, 2015 at 13:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .