Is LMGTFY as unacceptable as RTFM?

Question

On other SE (meta)sites there can be found robust discussion about the acceptability of an LMGTFY answer (see, for example). If you are unaware of the acronym, then see http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lmgtfy.

Every so often, my inner grumpy-old-man becomes enormously frustrated at both OP who have clearly not carried out the most basic search on what they are asking and those readers who shower upvotes on an answer that shows no expertise other than the ability to read, type, cut and paste.

What is the polite but firm response that says "Your question could be answered by the trivial application of any reputable search engine. Why are you posting it here?"

Or am I completely out of step with the SE ethos and does the rest of the community regard these questions as desirable?

---

I see that Luke has provided the definitive answer to my question by using his (unchallengeable) powers as moderator to delete https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/a/2919 from the main site.

I will now have to find another contribution by the person who wrote that answer to restore the rep that he earned when I upvoted it as entirely appropriate to the question.

Perhaps a "gentle hint" in the comments might be deemed an acceptable response.

Answer 1

Sometimes, what seems like 'the trivial application of a search engine' to me might be something the OP doesn't know the right search terms for. [I have a partner who is basically 'search-term-impaired' so I may be willing to cut others more slack as result -- he often struggles to construct a useful search even on topics he understands].

So (if I have time and inclination to answer at all) I would try to answer in a way that points the OP in the right direction in future as well as providing the information they need. Even if it was laziness and not inability on the OP's part, others might benefit in future from finding the answer here through a search engine, and come back again in future because of it.

If an answer is good, no matter how it's arrived at, I'll vote it up. I don't know enough about the skill-set of every contributor here to tell whether they pulled an answer out of their brain, a book or a Google search.

And if I think the question is a bad one for whatever reason, I'll downvote it.

Edited to add a further thought: It's possible that an OP wants a source for their answer that they trust to be reliable (i.e. this site) rather than something found via Google when they don't feel qualified to judge whether it's a nugget of wisdom or a mountain of trash.

Answer 2

There's a canonical answer on this at: Ban LMGTFY (let me google that for you) links

I'll add that an answer that just contains a link without any supporting information or explanation is always prone to being removed as Not An Answer.

Edited to add:

There are also practical reasons not to use lmgtfy (and similar). Google can return different results to different people for the same search, order those results randomly, and change the order of results with time. So referring somebody to 'the first Google result' from a lmgtfy-link is unpredictable -- and in time, it might even refer the OP back to their own question, which would be really unhelpful. Combine that with the possibility of linkrot and they're easily categorised as low-quality answers unless there's other content as well.

Answer 3

I am reminded of a joke:

A critical machine broke down at a factory. The senior mechanic had retired and nobody knew how to fix it, so they called him up and begged for help. He complied, came to the factory, looked at the machine, and put a white 'X' on a part. "Replace that," he said, and went home. Sure enough, the machine started working the moment the part was replaced. The next week the factory got a bill for $10,000 from the mechanic. Shocked, the factory asked for an itemization. The mechanic responded, "$1 for placement of a white 'X'. $9,999 for knowing where to put it."

Sometimes, especially for experts in their field, what is obvious to them is opaque to the rest of us. When they can make the opaque transparent is when the site's value will grow for everyone.

By no means am I excusing people who come to the site looking for a handout. Still there are people who ask questions with good intentions, but just do not know how the site operates. The community should be able separate the wheat from the chaff quickly through communication with the OP, and their questions will be dealt with accordingly.

Regarding question answering, if someone is able to answer a question but does not find answering worthwhile, encourage them to skip the question. Instead, they should save energy for the questions they are interested in answering and leave the rest to others. This will improve the quality of answers and keep expert participants from burning out on LMGTFY-level questions. It will also give nascent community members a chance to tackle low-hanging fruit, get some rep, and feel more a part of GFH.

Answer 4

On the few occasions that I have tried to answer such a question, I have responded with little more than the link to a source such as Wikipedia, found through a simple Google search. Unfortunately, a moderator suggested that copying/paraphrasing the source would be a better response that a mere link, or at least should accompany it. Although I agree with the basic criticism, I didn't feel like spending much time on something that was easily findable. Worse still, since I didn't apply the moderator's suggestion, others responded independently, quoting the same source, and were upvoted as a result. Probably better to skip such questions than to make a point over them.

Answer 5

On a separate but related issue: if you find something of use in a Google (or other) search, can we put something in the guidelines that explains a link to www.google.com with the search parameters is not a good idea? Searches by different people, in different parts of the world, and at different times, will yield a different (or at least differently ordered) set of results. This means an answer like 'Go to and select 4th from top' does not work. we should always give the real link, not the link to the search that you performed to find the link.

Answer 6

There are plenty of good answers to this meta, but will my 2 cents.

Providing good answers seems less to me an issue of whether the references and/or information are/is available via the Internet or accessible via a Google search, but whether same is instructive for the purpose of answering the question. Ala, I like answers that show some thought, have a little body, provide good references.

Whoa, Nellie, though. See, I feel the same way about questions. The questions valuable to me include some context, have a little body. When you read the question, it is apparent why it is being posed here. Equally so, the context of the question is grounded. (Let's not send each other into the wild unarmed.)

I suppose my take on all this falls into the category of what's-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander.

In the case of the Q&A that led to this meta, I'm a little biased. (Duck.) The question didn't have much body; there was little context--there was no summary of why had been done to solve the question.

I appreciate that we don't all bring the same experience or perspective to the task of developing questions or answers.* Experience and perspective are equally relative to an Internet search.

In my case, I know the person who posted the answer (at least better than the person how posted the question). If there is something that can be found on the Internet, then member Andy Hatchett is likely to find it; he's likely to express same using the fewest keyboard pecks possible.

For me, though, the circumstance of the Q&A that led to this meta fell into that category I mentioned--what's-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander.

*P.S. I've asked question that I was sure couldn't be readily answered by click a few keys--only to have another member point immediately to a solution. (...Being among the reasons I think Genealogy.SE is going to be a hit!)