# What is your opinion of responses with links and no explanation?



## .   1

G'day Commenter@s,
What is your opinion of a response that is merely a link to another forum or wikipedia?
Do you find such responses always helpful or are they potentially dismissive?

.,,


----------



## cyanista

Your question seems to be phrased in such a way as to provoke certain answers, Robert.  I agree, links are not the most helpful of all responses. But... some questions don't deserve any better. For example, have a look at the most recent question in the German forum: _
Is there another language besides German in which all nouns are written with capital letters?
_The only answer I have is: "Why don't you look up "Capitalization" in Wikipedia? It's all you have to do, really." (As a matter of fact, I am not going to reply at all as it would sound dismissive).


----------



## cuchuflete

If it's "merely a link", I ignore it.  If the posting forero doesn't draw a conclusion, and cite the link as
background or an information source, I can't be bothered to look at it.  I often do look at links that are presented in support of an argument, as they often have interesting detail, and sometimes even contradict the point of the post in which they appear.


----------



## ReadingForPleasure

Personally, I think that sometimes links can be really useful.  Why answer again if a question's already been answered fully somewhere else?  Sometimes they can also provide more information than a simple post.


----------



## TimeHP

I don't like a link as a response too much. 
But I appreciated links when I asked for the pronunciation of a word.
Ciao


----------



## panjandrum

I use links a lot, but I wouldn't follow a link posted without explanation.  Particularly irritating are links to a long page without any direction.  If I'm going to have to do a site search when I get there, I might as well Google for myself.


----------



## Kelly B

Guilty as charged, at least when it is a direct link to another WR thread. I do try to avoid doing that, but when the question has been asked and answered in excruciating detail in ten previous threads, _and _the question writer has been here long enough to know better, I occasionally find it difficult to say something beyond <ctrl-V> in a polite manner. Dismissive is better than snide, I think.


----------



## elroy

There's not a black and white answer.  Generally, naked links are not too helpful, but sometimes a question is answered more eloquently, concisely, and comprehensively in a link than I could ever attempt to answer it.  I agree that a clue should be given as to where to go if it's an extremely long page and not all of the material is relevant, but in other cases I think it's fine just to give the link.

Particularly, there are quite a few vocabulary questions whose answers are given in the first sentence of a Wikipedia entry.

Perhaps your view is different, Robert, because you don't frequent any bilingual forums.


----------



## panjabigator

They don't bother me at all. If you have something more to say, please say it, but if the link precisely addresses the issue/question, then by all means.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

After the tenth time I've read the same question, I think that a naked link to the previous 9 threads is more than enough, especially when some members seem not to be bothered using the search feature


----------



## danielfranco

I'm also guilty of doing that a lot in the bilingual forums. And yes, it is sometimes downright patronizing. But when somebody asks a question that could be answered easily by a small search ("what does this word mean in English/Spanish/whatever?") then there's very little incentive for me to explain in detail.
However, when the link is to give a broader context to whatever comment I'm making at the time, I post it so that the more agile minds of the rest of the forums can see for themselves what moved me to answer the way I did, and it's easier for them to draw their own conclusions and discard mine (if they come up with better ones, that is).


----------



## .   1

One of the wonderful things about this forum is the way that it is emulating a real dictionary.
One of the real pleasures is stumbling over something that I did not know just as I do with a printed dictionary.  An un accompanied link is useless in this respect as I will not see anything interesting if I scroll down the thread.
Surely if it is worth the trouble to supply the link it would be little more effort to give one sentence to make the link appear interesting.  You never know but you may give the most succinct response to the question posed.

Robert


----------



## Etcetera

I won't open any link if there isn't at least a brief description of what can be found there. What if it's a link to a page with a virus? Of course, I trust fellow forer@s, but the Internet has taught me to be always on watch. 

What about links to other threads in these Forums? I noticed that I posted links in my replies quite often recently... (But I always explain why I think that clicking on those links may be useful!)


----------



## Mei

Hi all there,

I use the links so much with no explanation and I do it to let you (whoever you are) know where I found it so next time that you have a question you will look for it there before you ask and waste foreros time... (well, I hope you do it). But if you don't like it I'll just copy and past the information without mention where I found it, just tell me how (the most of you all) prefer the answers.

I must say that depending on the question it's easy to do it but others require a good explanation.

Cheers 

Mei


----------



## betulina

Hi, 

I like links, either if I use them or if I get a link as an answer. It's always helpful and and a way to complement my list of resources and searching skills. However, it is always nice to get the "link poster"'s opinion on what I ask, apart from the link, and that's what I try to do every time I answer with one. I use links as a "support" for what I answer.


----------



## geve

> Do you find such responses always helpful or are they potentially dismissive?


Neither answer of course - the question sounds somewhat biased. 

I suspect you haven't given enough context, Robert.  It sounds like you are thinking about a specific case.


I often post short messages such as "Have you tried the WRD?" (because some people ask questions like "does anonyone know how to say context in French"), or "Have you read the guidelines of this forum?", or "Already discussed here".
More often than not, though, I'll add something like "it's always a good idea to use the search feature before posting", or "if you don't provide a context we cannot do better than a dictionary"... But that's still not relevant information for the thread's question.
Sometimes I might also post a link to a previous thread on a related topic, because it might interest someone who'll read the thread later.


----------



## Xerinola

Mei said:


> Hi all there,
> 
> I use the links so much with no explanation and I do it to let you (whoever you are) know where I found it so next time that you have a question you will look for it there before you ask and waste foreros time... (well, I hope you do it). But if you don't like it I'll just copy and past the information without mention where I found it, just tell me how (the most of you all) prefer the answers.
> 
> I must say that depending on the question it's easy to do it but others require a good explanation.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mei


 
I agree with Mei. If there is a thread with a correct explanation I think that is not bad to use links.

X:


----------



## winklepicker

I'm really glad I fell over this discussion. To be honest, it never occurred to me that a link without full explanation might be rude - but now I see that it could. I will try to do better in future!


----------



## Etcetera

winklepicker said:


> I'm really glad I fell over this discussion. To be honest, it never occurred to me that a link without full explanation might be rude - but now I see that it could. I will try to do better in future!


Well, the explanation may be brief. 
Is it so difficult to add something like "You may find information on this page of interest" or "Look here, there's something you can find to be useful for you". It's much nicer than just giving a link without any explanation.


----------



## fenixpollo

. said:


> What is your opinion of a response that is merely a link to another forum or wikipedia?


 If it is just a link with no comment whatsoever, then it is as helpful and useful as any other contextless post -- in other words, hardly useful or helpful at all.





cuchuflete said:


> If it's "merely a link", I ignore it. If the posting forero doesn't draw a conclusion, and cite the link as
> background or an information source, I can't be bothered to look at it. I often do look at links that are presented in support of an argument, as they often have interesting detail, and sometimes even contradict the point of the post in which they appear.


If, however, I'm responding to a language question that has been asked and answered in a previous thread, I'll provide a link with a comment: 





			
				fenixpollo said:
			
		

> There is a previous thread on this topic that might be helpful: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=2103795


 If I posted with no comment, I agree that the tone would be interpreted as dismissive.


----------



## .   1

cyanista said:


> Your question seems to be phrased in such a way as to provoke certain answers, Robert.





geve said:


> Neither answer of course - the question sounds somewhat biased.


I did not intend to pose a biased question and I am puzzled now as it is obvious that the question is biased but I just can not see why.
I am not interested in a particular response nor am I interested in seeing my own opinion as much as the opinions of others.
What did I do wrong?

When I posted this I saw the answer.
It's the damned thread title.
Sorry about that.

Robert


----------



## Hotmale

cyanista said:


> .. some questions don't deserve any better. For example, have a look at the most recent question in the German forum: _
> Is there another language besides German in which all nouns are written with capital letters?
> _The only answer I have is: "Why don't you look up "Capitalization" in Wikipedia? It's all you have to do, really." (As a matter of fact, I am not going to reply at all as it would sound dismissive).



Well, I don't think it is a bad question. If the one who posted this question, had known he would find his answer in Wikipedia under Capitalisation, he wouldn't have asked about it in the forum.
There are no stupid questions.
If I were you, cyanista, I wouldn't have given such an example. Surely, the person who asked about this question, and read your comment here, cannot be too happy.


----------



## Etcetera

Hotmale said:


> Well, I don't think it is a bad question. If the one who posted this question, had known he would find his answer in Wikipedia under Capitalisation, he wouldn't have asked about it in the forum.
> There are no stupid questions.
> If I were you, cyanista, I wouldn't have given such an example. Surely, the person who asked about this question, and read your comment here, cannot be too happy.


Excuse me for interrupting, but here it *is* a bad question, because the answer can be found via Google (I tried it; the article Cyanista has mentioned is the first to appeaк on the search results page). 
Unfortunately, most people don't bother and prefer to go and start a new thread - instead of googling and searching the Forums first.


----------



## Hotmale

Etcetera said:


> Excuse me for interrupting, but here it *is* a bad question, because the answer can be found via Google (I tried it; the article Cyanista has mentioned is the first to appeaк on the search results page).
> Unfortunately, most people don't bother and prefer to go and start a new thread - instead of googling and searching the Forums first.



Hi Etcetera,
People often post here to seek confirmation, through people's comments they can learn more than from a site they googled. Sometimes an interesting discussion can follow. 
Today I asked a question (perhaps in some people's opinion it was a bad question) about names of towns that take "the". The things I learned from the posts I would never find on the Net, even if it took me a year or more to find  .

Cheers, H


----------



## Etcetera

From the question mentioned by Cyanista, one may conclude that what the prson wanted was mere a list of languages in which all nouns are written with capital letter. If the question was why these languages may need all their nouns to be written with capital letter, that would be another thing. An interesting discussion could follow - not just a list of languages.


----------



## .   1

Etcetera said:


> From the question mentioned by Cyanista, one may conclude that what the prson wanted was mere a list of languages in which all nouns are written with capital letter. If the question was why these languages may need all their nouns to be written with capital letter, that would be another thing. An interesting discussion could follow - not just a list of languages.


Some people are not subtle enough for this or perhaps they are being too subtle.
Cuchuflete is confident enough to write a question and include Part 1 in his title.  This was because he was laying the groundwork for the question that he actually wanted to post which is to be the Part 2 part.
Were I to post a question asking, "Why do languages capitalise all nouns?" I could easily expect to receive responses along the line, "Do your research.  There is only one such language!"
If a question is posed that I consider too shallow for a response I will not respond.  Perhaps it is just my perception and I then miss out on a wonderful discussion but I will not not left in the position of criticizing a question as being foolish only to see it bloom as the responses reveal what the question was really about.

Robert


----------

