MOTUnation.com

Shooshie wrote: We're rather different in that regard. I accept your brevity; you'll probably just have to accept my loquacious proclivities. No offense intended, and none taken.

Shooshie

I was going to comment on your loquacious proclivities, but research has shown you already did..

Shooshie wrote:PS: I read Strunk & White, cover to cover, several times.
It just didn't take.

I have the third edition. It's too long so I haven't read it all.

bayswater wrote:

Shooshie wrote:PS: I read Strunk & White, cover to cover, several times.
It just didn't take.

I have the third edition. It's too long so I haven't read it all.

Tim could teach Strunk & White a thing...
I admire Tim's amazing ability to nail anything in a few words.
I'm nothing but the anti-Tim. But as Popeye says, I yam what I yam...

Shoosh

toodamnhip wrote:I was going to comment on your loquacious proclivities, but research has shown you already did...

Ah, you're not so terse, yourself!

Shooshie wrote:

toodamnhip wrote:I was going to comment on your loquacious proclivities, but research has shown you already did...

Ah, you're not so terse, yourself!

TOUCH´E

Shooshie wrote:

Robert Randolph wrote:As a sidenote, can you lower the editorializing in the bug report itself? It makes for a lot of extra reading when someone wants to quickly see what the bug is. It'd be totally fine if you posted a 'personal note' section or something, or posted in this thread and linked to your post.

Under the circumstance, I felt that it required explanation. I will always lean toward more information rather than too little. It may not look tidy, but it explains the problem vs. anticipated responses or questions. So... I think it was about the right amount of info.

We're rather different in that regard. I accept your brevity; you'll probably just have to accept my loquacious proclivities. No offense intended, and none taken.

Shooshie

PS: I read Strunk & White, cover to cover, several times.
It just didn't take.

I don't mind the loquaciousness at all, but I would like there to be at least a small section that explains the issue as concisely as possible.

For example: "Tab key currently selects between GUI controls in the MIDI Editor and Tracks overview window rather than responding to appropriate tab-oriented shortcuts"... Then follow it with the commentary.

I think the added writing is helpful to some folks and I'm glad you do it, but I know that there's a selection of people that come here frustrated and annoyed. The latter set of folks want to know if the bug is known as fast as possible so they can go back to cursing their computer.

It's not really a big deal. I file it under, "Well, it's not really an issue, but it wouldn't hurt to ask." (and I appreciate that you realize the tone of the request!)

edit: I could just add a concise summary in the report in the second post really, and it becomes a non-issue. I'm not sure how people would feel about me summarizing their post though.

Again, it's great you're doing all this but you should not be a gestapo on how people express themselves. It takes a pretty big pair of balls to tell Shooshie, of all people, that he shouldn't "editorialize" his posts.

Seriously?

I've noticed the micromanagement of this experiment from the first time the concept was introduced. Let the members explain their observations in their own way. It's not your private little corner here. It's for all members.

Ok??

Pot. Kettle.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Again, it's great you're doing all this but you should not be a gestapo on how people express themselves. It takes a pretty big pair of balls to tell Shooshie, of all people, that he shouldn't "editorialize" his posts.

Seriously?

I've noticed the micromanagement of this experiment from the first time the concept was introduced. Let the members explain their observations in their own way. It's not your private little corner here. It's for all members.

Ok??

Please re-read what I said. I didn't tell him not to do anything. I asked him to lower the editorializing it or separate it from a concise listing of what the bug is.

If he says no, that's fine. We're all adults here and I'd assume that such requests can be handled in a reasonable manner. Shooshie understood what I was asking, and I'm totally OK with his response. Easy.

Shooshie wrote: We're rather different in that regard. I accept your brevity; you'll probably just have to accept my loquacious proclivities. No offense intended, and none taken.

Shooshie

Robert Randolph wrote: I asked him to lower the editorializing it or separate it from a concise listing of what the bug is.

The average member (I assume you are interested in attracting average members here as well?) is not going to sift thru your rules and regulations on posting "minimize editorials" and other "constraints" in reporting something. They are probably in a hurry with other stuff to do and the reporting process should be as simple as possible, while still allowing them to express themselves as they see fit.

If you are truly going to take on the job of documenting bugs from the general members, you have to accept what the members post as posted or ask for a clarification if there's something you don't get. Yes, that's going to be more work for you. It's your circus and they are your monkeys.



Capisco?

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

Robert Randolph wrote: I asked him to lower the editorializing it or separate it from a concise listing of what the bug is.

The average member (I assume you are interested in attracting average members here as well?) is not going to sift thru your rules and regulations on posting "minimize editorials" and other "constraints" in reporting something. They are probably in a hurry with other stuff to do and the reporting process should be as simple as possible, while still allowing them to express themselves as they see fit.

If you are truly going to take on the job of documenting bugs from the general members, you have to accept what the members post as posted or ask for a clarification if there's something you don't get. Yes, that's going to be more work for you. It's your circus and they are your monkeys.



Capisco?

I accept that people will do whatever they want, but I can also ask them if they would consider changing their behaviour if they agree that it's better for the community at large.

This is how reasonable people act I think. If you want someone to change what they are doing, you ask politely then you proceed from there.

Robert Randolph wrote:I don't mind the loquaciousness at all, but I would like there to be at least a small section that explains the issue as concisely as possible.

I added a title to the post which does that, at least I hope it's enough to describe it. I always title those posts, but had forgotten to do this one. In fact, I went through the thread and put titles in ALL the posts about a month ago. I likewise believe there has to be at least one or two lines that summarize the problem for quick reference.

This one being a real problem, but based on a more subtle issue of programming tastes, I did feel compelled to explain the programmer's action that could lead to even more problems of this nature. (hijacking our already-in-use keys without giving us the ability to change it back)

And I don't mind that Robert asked for a concise explanation. I really should have put it in the title from the beginning. Years ago, when schools were staging "Net Day" to wire their classrooms for the internet (which required loads of planning, organizing, purchasing equipment, and motivating parents to participate), an editor challenged me to explain it in 10 steps at under 100 words. I did it, and it was complete and understandable. Took me a whole day to write those 99 words. It would have taken 15 minutes to do it in a thousand words. Concise writing is great when it's clear and complete, but it takes longer. It's like writing poetry.

So forgive my ways here. To save time, I write more words. (odd, but true) To be sure something is understood, I often say it 3 ways. Yep, three. I learned when teaching that three different approaches were usually necessary for complex information to generate the "aha" moment in students, and that has held true in casual conversation as well. It's like triangulating a forest fire on the map in order to tell the fire trucks where to go. The mental processes just work better with multiple approaches.

In fact, I just did that.

Shooshie

The title addition is perfect, thank you.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Again, it's great you're doing all this but you should not be a gestapo on how people express themselves.

Did we need to go there?

Again, it's great you're doing all this but I'd suggest allowing more flexibility on how people express themselves.

Fixed it for you.

Thanks. I'm not known for my tact. Lol