# The usual



## bleedbruins (24 Feb 2011)

Why is it on this forum, that every time someone has a question regarding anything with recruiting in the military, the first response is always 'use the search function'?..Why not just give a hand and help out with whatever the person is seeking?  If you don't like what the person has asked, then don't respond.  Is it really necessary to comment on every post by telling them to 'look it up'  Its so redundant here, and honestly everyone is just directed to either 'search it' or contact your local recruiter.  

So why not just save everyone the time and get rid of the Recruiting section? Because its obvious its to bothersome to answer a question for someone, and much easier to know the answer but tell them to search for it.  I understand about using the search function, but I've even read posts saying 'I'm sure you'll find the answer somewhere' or 'its been answered before'  Its really not a fun job reading through every previous post, trying to find even a hint of the answer you are looking for, or some branched off answer.  

Its tiring reading the same response, or people jumping on others because their spelling is incorrect, or they didn't use perfect grammar.  If the most obvious question is being asked, and has obviously been answered many times before, then sure use the 'search function' answer.  But is that really required as a response for every question?  I guarantee some people don't post because they do not want to be chastised for asking a questions that Could have already been answered...Chasing people off the forum...it's a brilliant tactic.


----------



## Ridgeline (24 Feb 2011)

Well said, I completely agree


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2011)

bleedbruins said:
			
		

> Why is it on this forum, that every time someone has a question regarding anything with recruiting in the military, the first response is always 'use the search function'



That question has also been answered many times. Use the search function.


----------



## Occam (24 Feb 2011)

I think the problem lies with people who are too lazy to search.

If a question is relatively uncommonly asked, I'll provide an answer.  If it's one that's frequently asked, I'll tell them to search.

If we do as you propose, which is to simply give out the answer, that results in two undesirable effects:  one, it makes for lazy people who can't be bothered to seek answers for themselves; and two, it clutters up the forum with 300 different people asking "What can I bring to BMQ?  Can I bring a laptop?".

A good teacher doesn't simply tell a student the answer.  The good teacher teaches the student how to figure out the answer for themselves.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That question has also been answered many times. Use the search function.



Well said!   ;D


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That question has also been answered many times. Use the search function.


I _knew_ that was coming   ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2011)

Because maybe we want to recruit those who have some inititive and, when required, can take being handled with a touch of sandpaper because IF you make it past the CFRC you will be.

I'm curiouse so I have a question for you 'bleedbruins' and 'ridgeline',  when you buy a book do you read it first or do you just ask a book forum what happens??
So why would a forum be any different?


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Feb 2011)

bleedbruins said:
			
		

> Why is it on this forum, that every time someone has a question regarding anything with recruiting in the military, the first response is always 'use the search function'?..Why not just give a hand and help out with whatever the person is seeking?  If you don't like what the person has asked, then don't respond.  Is it really necessary to comment on every post by telling them to 'look it up'  Its so redundant here, and honestly everyone is just directed to either 'search it' or contact your local recruiter.
> 
> So why not just save everyone the time and get rid of the Recruiting section? Because its obvious its to bothersome to answer a question for someone, and much easier to know the answer but tell them to search for it.  I understand about using the search function, but I've even read posts saying 'I'm sure you'll find the answer somewhere' or 'its been answered before'  Its really not a fun job reading through every previous post, trying to find even a hint of the answer you are looking for, or some branched off answer.
> 
> Its tiring reading the same response, or people jumping on others because their spelling is incorrect, or they didn't use perfect grammar.  If the most obvious question is being asked, and has obviously been answered many times before, then sure use the 'search function' answer.  But is that really required as a response for every question?  I guarantee some people don't post because they do not want to be chastised for asking a questions that Could have already been answered...Chasing people off the forum...it's a brilliant tactic.



Now that you've been here a few months and probably know your way around the forum, please feel free to jump in on any thread and type out the answer so the poster doesn't have to search. Once you have answered the same question and few times, or a few dozen times, you may also find value in advising others that the search function can be helpful.  I see that you have not once attempted to do what you say "we" should be doing.

I also recommend providing a link to the applicable search results to both demonstrate that searching works, and to shorten their introduction to the system. My preference is to show them Google site-specific search:

site:army.ca "use the search"

Feel free to consider yourself a member and help out rather than just criticizing.


----------



## Mudshuvel (24 Feb 2011)

Even as a new user, I read through the different threads of what I was interested in. For example, I want to be an AC OP. When I wanted information on AC Op, I knew it was an Air Force Support Trade, so I looked through Air Force support trades and found the information. When I had a question concerning a medical issue I had, I looked under Recruiting> Medical. I found the answer I needed a few pages in. Its not that people _don't_ want to help you or anyone, its the fact that there are 20 people, asking the same question, in the same thread when the answer is on the next page. We do want to help, and I understand that some people may not have the _patience_ to search themselves, but the entire recruitment process _requires patience_. I've been berated (lol) for not using the search function myself. No offence to anyone, this is not an attack on *anyone* but for some people, if you don't have the patience to look for information you're seeking or you want the information handed to you on a platter or you'll keep asking the same question because you're not getting the answer you want to hear, you may want to check into why you're joining the military. If you *search* the recruitment process thread, you will see some people waiting years to hear word about their application, and if you don't have the patience to look for information pertaining to your future, how are you going to fare on a 2 year waiting list. /End rant


----------



## brihard (24 Feb 2011)

Frankly, the site's search function is awful. The much more effective way to search is using the "site:milnet.ca" or "site:army.ca" trick that Michael referred to, but most people don't know you can do that with Google. Most people don't know a whole lot about using different search expressions, and so it's hard to get exactly what it is you're looking for. Any time I search this site, I always do it through Google.

Telling new members to search is all well and good, but when the site doesn't offer a search function that works intuitively and accurately, what are they to think? Do we view ourselves as a club, or as a resource?

The way I see it, if someone has already taken the initiative to find this site to begin with and to try learning about a career in the CF, I'll spend a few moments if I can to pass on what I know. Maybe I'm just more patient than normal, or have more time on my hands.


----------



## agc (24 Feb 2011)

Could Google Custom Search be used to replace the engine everyone complains about?

http://www.google.com/cse/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2011)

Actually I find ONE search function awesome [ I use it all the time to "spring clean"],....it's the one in the "Home' "Help" "Search" button column, the one that appears as a search box is  awful.

I would like it removed but I think its part of the hardware.


----------



## chrisf (24 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That question has also been answered many times. Use the search function.



I don't think was your intent, but I just lost it laughing when I read that.


----------



## Sigger (24 Feb 2011)

SMF has a pretty mickey mouse Google Site Search mod. 
The search page, not the search box is, as Monkhouse says, is decent.


----------



## mariomike (24 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That question has also been answered many times. Use the search function.



 :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2011)

bleedbruins said:
			
		

> Why is it on this forum, that every time someone has a question regarding anything with recruiting in the military, the first response is always 'use the search function'?..Why not just give a hand and help out with whatever the person is seeking?  If you don't like what the person has asked, then don't respond.  Is it really necessary to comment on every post by telling them to 'look it up'  Its so redundant here, and honestly everyone is just directed to either 'search it' or contact your local recruiter.
> 
> So why not just save everyone the time and get rid of the Recruiting section? Because its obvious its to bothersome to answer a question for someone, and much easier to know the answer but tell them to search for it.  I understand about using the search function, but I've even read posts saying 'I'm sure you'll find the answer somewhere' or 'its been answered before'  Its really not a fun job reading through every previous post, trying to find even a hint of the answer you are looking for, or some branched off answer.
> 
> Its tiring reading the same response, or people jumping on others because their spelling is incorrect, or they didn't use perfect grammar.  If the most obvious question is being asked, and has obviously been answered many times before, then sure use the 'search function' answer.  But is that really required as a response for every question?  I guarantee some people don't post because they do not want to be chastised for asking a questions that Could have already been answered...Chasing people off the forum...it's a brilliant tactic.



Do you feel better now?  You do realize that this little rant of yours has been done before.  We really don't need to create more rants, all whining about the same thing: "I was picked on by guys on army.ca".  We will entertain your thoughts and eventually merge your thread with all the others on the same topic.

A couple of points first.

As mentioned, this whining rant has been done before.  Now we have yet another topic crying about the meanies on army.ca.  Nothing really new, and sometimes demonstrates that people do not have as thick a skin as others.

Two.  We are trying to encourage people to use their initiative and learn how to do things themselves, as in the CF there is no one who is going to treat you like you have a silver spoon in your mouth and spoon feed you everything you need to know or want.  You'll more than likely see a black pair of size elevens giving you a boot in the rear, than a silver spoon feeding.

Third.  We are also trying to provide the membership with a "Professional" site dealing with a profession that prides itself in its Professionalism; not something you would find on Rabble or some other chat site.  We encourage people from the very start to use professional writing skills and to use correct spelling.  Why?  Because they will have to be able to communicate clearly and concisely in their jobs within the CF and as a side bar to that, it helps us use the SEARCH function.  SEARCH is absolutely no good to anyone here if people do not know how to spell correctly.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I don't think was your intent, but I just lost it laughing when I read that.



My intent was two-fold........

1- make some people laugh; and
2- Well...you can figure it out........


----------



## jwtg (24 Feb 2011)

I've made some revisions..... 

Why is it on this forum, that every time someone has a question regarding anything with recruiting in the military, their first response is always 'create a new post and ask my question'?..Why not just use their head  and try one of the many ways of searching for whatever the person is seeking?  If you don't find what the you're looking for, then feel free to ask.  Is it really necessary to create a new thread that needn't exist if one would simply   'look it up'  Its so redundant here, and honestly everyone should just 'search it' or contact your local recruiter.  

So why not just save everyone the time and get rid of the ignorant people? Because its obvious its to bothersome to answer a question for someone when they could very easily, and much easier to know the answer if they would only search for it.  I understand about using the search function, and I've even read posts saying 'I'm sure you'll find the answer somewhere' or 'its been answered before'  Its really not a fun job reading through every previous post, trying to find even a hint of the answer you are looking for, or some branched off answer, but with a little effort I could save everyone the 'fun' of correcting my naivety.  

Its tiring reading the same response, or people jumping on others because their spelling is incorrect, or they didn't use perfect grammar-people that can't spell or use grammar probably won't succeed in the CF in the long run.  If the most obvious question is being asked, and has obviously been answered many times before, then sure use the 'search function' answer.  But is that really required as a response for every question?  I guarantee some people shouldn't post because they do not want to be chastised for asking a questions that Could have already been answered...Chasing people off the forum...it's a brilliant tactic.  Some day we'll have weeded out all the duds, kind of like they try and do at BMQ/BMOQ.



##EDIT: Fixed a minor typo.  Also, kudos to CDN Aviator on the most clever answer so far.  He beat me to it, so I had to come up with this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2011)

Don't sell yourself short, that was good too.


----------



## JMesh (24 Feb 2011)

jwtg and CDN Aviator:

:rofl:

Funniest posts I've seen on here in a while, including those in dumbest thing today and more funnies vol something. MilPoints inbound!

To the OP, we also need to consider bandwidth of the site. This site takes a lot to host (on that note, kudos to the DS and particularly to Mike) and it's expensive. Allowing people to post what has already been posted only takes up more, slowing the site and/or making it cost more. On top of all that, we have our own lives too. If we take time to answer every question that's been asked on here many times, we are taking out of our own time. And quite frankly, to hell with that.

While we aren't affiliated with DND, we want to be seen as professionals, because as individuals we are, and we try to be so collectively. We want the best site and we want the best people entering the CF, whether that involves someone who perhaps isn't well suited to the CF walking away or getting their head screwed on straight (read: getting a boot in the arse). By "nit-picking", we help to accomplish that goal, if only in a small way.

I was a bit of a numptie when I started on here as a cadet, and I can say with complete honesty that this site has helped me develop as an officer and as an individual.

Welcome to Navy/Army/AirForce/Milnet.ca. Please read and obey the rules (which include SEARCH) and you will enjoy your stay.

Edit to correct minor (albeit stupid) grammar mistake.

2nd edit to add: Maybe the search function through Google is too problematic because of either ID-ten-T or PEBKAC errors. I think we need to look at this one everybody.


----------



## chrisf (24 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> My intent was two-fold........
> 
> 1- make some people laugh; and
> 2- Well...you can figure it out........



Reminded me of brick in the wall... "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"


----------



## Griffon (24 Feb 2011)

I may be fairly new here, but I am going to express my opinion on this topic anyways.

The OP has expressed an opinion of displeasure of the general flaming that occurs on this site when somebody asks a simple question.  There is nothing wrong with that, people should feel free to come on the site and ask questions.  Is there a search function? Yes.  Can you Google it? Yes.  Do you always get up-to-date, relevant, and accurate information that way? NO.

I can sit down and do all the research in the world, read information on the DIN, and look at old posts but it may do little else than provide me with more background info relevant to my situation without actually answering my question.  Do some people have it coming to them when they ask the same question somebody asked and had answered last week/month?  Probably.  But that doesn't mean that all the usual site members need to jump on the bandwagon and disrespectfully shut them down (and I am not referring to the majority of THIS thread, but rather to others on the site).

IMHO, this thread should have been done with Occam's post, or maybe Bruce's first.  To Michael O'Leary's statement:

"Now that you've been here a few months and probably know your way around the forum, please feel free to jump in on any thread and type out the answer so the poster doesn't have to search. Once you have answered the same question and few times, or a few dozen times, you may also find value in advising others that the search function can be helpful.  I see that you have not once attempted to do what you say "we" should be doing."

I suggest that if you don't want to take the time to answer a question AGAIN, don't.  That's it.  Just save your time and energy and leave it to somebody else.

As for how the last few posts have gone on this thread, we have George Wallace highlighting the intent to "provide the membership with a "Professional" site ", which is followed by a satire of the OP's post that receives a kudos from DS.  REALLY? I thought this site wasn't in the business of condoning that kind of behaviour.

If the intent is to keep it professional, then let's do that.  If somebody asks a question that has been answered, direct the poster to the answer and Lock/Merge the thread.  There is no requirement to flame a newbie for being a little ignorant and not searching, or to flame the guy that HAS looked and is asking anyways.  If somebody opens a rant thread (not this one, I think his post actually has some value), then LOCK IT.  It doesn't prove anything to jump on somebody and read them the riot act.

I don't think the OP is asking for too much, it's just a request that members keep things on a more amicable, respectful, professional manner, and I think that falls in line nicely with Bruce's third point on professionalism.

But that's just my  :2c:

Oh, and for the record, I haven't been chewed a new one yet, although I am sure I will for this one.


----------



## jwtg (24 Feb 2011)

Griffon said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I suggest that if you don't want to take the time to answer a question AGAIN, don't.  That's it.  Just save your time and energy and leave it to somebody else.
> 
> ...



I've heard the best way to communicate is to speak to someone in their own language.  I took that literally, hence the satire using his words.  It seemed like the simplest way to address all of his concerns by providing rebuttal.  That doesn't sit well with you- so be it.  I consider my comical form of correction to be gentle and easy to take, especially compared to what someone is likely to experience during the course of a CF career, beginning with basic training.  I can't imagine that if I ask my instructors every day 'What are my boots supposed to look like for inspection?' they're going to smile and gently demonstrate for me the proper placement of boots for inspection.  They'll tell me to make use of the photographs provided for standards for inspection (of which I was undoubtedly made aware prior to preparing for inspection), or to look at a squad mate's cubicle, or use one of the many means of acquiring information I have at my disposal without wasting their time.  

They'll probably also make me do pushups.  If you'd prefer, I will begin to respond to posts like this with punishment/correction in the form of push ups, rather than satire.



			
				Griffon said:
			
		

> ...
> Oh, and for the record, I haven't been chewed a new one yet, although I am sure I will for this one.



25 pushups please.  Then you have permission to recover.

##EDIT: Typo.  Had a word in there twice- thought it might meet Griffon's standards of professionalism if I corrected my error.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Feb 2011)

I hereby motion that personnel looking for information contact Ridgeline, bleedbruins and Griffon. These 3 will patiently and gladly assist newcomers to the site and find all relevant information that the individual is seeking. That sounds fair, doesn't it?


----------



## Griffon (24 Feb 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> 25 pushups please.  Then you have permission to recover.



DCO...Thank you.



			
				jwtg said:
			
		

> I've heard the best way to communicate is to speak to someone in their own language.



To this I would agree with to some extent, but I would say that the best way to communicate is to speak to someone _at their level of comprehension._  One doesn't have to talk down to them, twist their words to suit one's desires or be condecending; but should rather communicate in a clear concise manner and at a level that the people you are addressing fully understand.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I hereby motion that personnel looking for information contact Ridgeline, bleedbruins and Griffon. These 3 will patiently and gladly assist newcomers to the site and find all relevant information that the individual is seeking. That sounds fair, doesn't it?



As I said, if someone asks a question that has been answered _ad nauseum_, I generally prefer to politely let it go.  If one would like to gently nudge someone in the right direction that's great, but I don't agree that people need to jump on a bandwagon and blast a guy for asking the question, that's all.

But yes, if it will take me less time and effort to answer the question than to do the research, post links, and tell the person to search, I just may do that.  But only _if_ I actually know the answer.  :nod:

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2011)

Griffon said:
			
		

> But yes, if it will take me less time and effort to answer the question than to do the research, post links, and tell the person to search, I just may do that.



Why ? what does a poster learn from that ?

This happens to me every day....i look for one peice of information and in the process of doing research, i find out many other things.

So, what does a poster learn by being spoonfed ?



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I hereby motion that personnel looking for information contact Ridgeline, bleedbruins and Griffon.



Wait until April rolls around.........see the gongshow that this site will be...........


----------



## Griffon (24 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why ? what does a poster learn from that ?
> 
> This happens to me every day....i look for one peice of information and in the process of doing research, i find out many other things.
> 
> ...



As I said, I _may_ [answer], it depends on the question.  I understand how this forum works and that looking before asking is an excellent way of finding the information you are looking for, but I also understand that a new person may just ask a question because they are ignorant of the other methods of gaining that information, or because the info seeked is old or buried somewhere in an obscure corner of the site.  It isn't rude to answer the question or provide _gentle guidance_ on how to independently find the answer, and one doesn't have to be condescending when responding to such a question.  

A forum is a place for discussion by definition:
"an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest. "
"a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest."
"a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine."
"a public meeting place for open discussion."

and discussions go two ways.  It is not _always_ required to shut someone down, that's all.

As for the gong show, that's a beast to deal with unto itself, and I will probably exercise my right to remain silent for most of it.


----------



## jwtg (24 Feb 2011)

Griffon said:
			
		

> ...I also understand that a new person may just ask a question because they are ignorant of the other methods of gaining that information, or because the info seeked is old or buried somewhere in an obscure corner of the site....


Give a man a fish...teach a man to fish...

##Edit: Closed open quote tag.


----------



## kratz (24 Feb 2011)

This site encourages members to think and self-censure ourselves. This means there will tend to be more posts not encouraging disregard for site guidelines, than against.
Griffon offers straw arguments by enumerating how many active site members do not agree with the OP. This in itself is an indication the site serves those who 
meet the litmus test and are striving to live and work within a military community. The DS (AKA moderators) are not here to hold hands or respect feelings, much like in real military life. 
A new initiative, Mentors, was started to allow those dedicated to assist the site in an unofficial way. Mentors have some level of experience with the military or dedication to the site. Approval to join the DS or Mentors rests solely with the Site Owner.

Granted, since I have been with the site, we have become "kinder and gentler" to those who blindly post or demand answers. Most dogpiles and other negative 
responses are muted. The OP's current version of complaint, while valid to him is a far cry from what would have been experienced years ago.

To paraphrase someone I respect:

"Thanks to super-recruit we now know how to post and complain. If we don't know, post and demand others to provide all the answers in a timely and conveniently ordered Coles Notes version that I can crib into my interview with the dreaded CFRC Recruiting Lord over my Interview, after I have defeated the monstrous CFAT with my airsoft gun."

Many people who have been around, no longer even read or answer the recruiting threads. Do You Know Why? I'll give you the first 50 repetitive questions before you figure it out. Griffon, my respect to you to attempt to take on all recruiting questions. But you already self-limted your answers in your own post (# 23) by admitting you can only answers questions you know the answers to. Often, new people only want to hear from the SMEs who are living and doing the job now. Those same SMEs are often, no longer participating in these threads because of expectations like the OP. Griffon has joined the site, agreed to the current rules, does not like them and is now redefining them all on his own to meet his own definition (#25). 

This site is NOT and Official Site and will never make any such claim. That being said, with many current and past members of all ranks (literally), this site is one of the best sources for real answers if you are willing to accept and work within the rules. Which all people who signed up "agreed to do", it is their failure if they do not follow site rules.

I second Ex-Dragon's motion:

I hereby motion that personnel looking for information contact Ridgeline, bleedbruins and Griffon. These 3 will patiently and gladly assist newcomers to the site and find all relevant information that the individual is seeking. That sounds fair, doesn't it?

Sadly, I agree with CDN Aviator's prediction. This is the calm before the....show.

Mister PMC, can we have the vote now?


*Kratz
Navy.ca Mentor*


----------



## Cdnleaf (24 Feb 2011)

_"A credible online reputation means you’ll have people paying attention when you add to a thread.  But it only takes one outrageous contribution that incites or adds to a flame war blow that all away.  And the evidence seldom, if ever, disappears.  And when you set yourself up as a questionable poster, those you could legitimately be helping may avoid your recommendations because they won’t know where you’re coming from any more." _ 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html

The quote is from one of the many nuggets at the link; still one of my personal favorite posts/threads to read.  A few times I've searched for things, not found it - then asked someone/DS/relic/veteran etc. rather than posting.  As for grammar, perhaps it's a personal/professional thing; if I have attempted my best and given the spell check a run through, that's good enough for me.  All the best.


----------



## dimsum (24 Feb 2011)

I like to think of the "search this, get something completely different" lesson of using this search engine as training for trying to search anything on the DWAN/DIN.  But that's just me.

Seriously though, one would hope that people did some research besides just asking randomly (and seemingly repeatedly) how to get into "insert trade here."  As for grammar/spelling, it's definitely a professional thing (if not personal) since at some point in our careers, we will have to write something intended for other people to read.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2011)

Another reason for the original poster as to why we 'push" the search function.

All those 'merged' or 'superthreads' you see, ala  The Iran Superthread  repersent many, many hours of VOLUNTEER work to make/ edit.

Just go through that thread and count the various titles that are in it and then post it here......[ I'll bet you grow weary before you have finished :nod:]


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2011)

kratz said:
			
		

> Those same SMEs are often, no longer participating in these threads because of expectations like the OP.


...as well as the posters who believe medical and/or fitness standards should not apply to them because they're somehow "special."

As for the, "don't like the repetitive/dumb questions, then don't respond," we see many occasions of that, where the 'entitlement-/short attention span' poster will then post "I POSTED 5 MINUTED AGO; WHERE'S MY ANSWER?!   :crybaby:  YOU PEOPLE ARE DICKS!    ....dude."

But Kratz is correct; I can't speak for others, but my postings in Recruiting are _severely_ curtailed -- I'm having enough heartache with poorly thought-out posts in the Current Events threads  :



And Kratz, it's looking like you're making a killing in MilPoints today


----------



## Griffon (24 Feb 2011)

kratz said:
			
		

> Griffon offers straw arguments by enumerating how many active site members do not agree with the OP. This in itself is an indication the site serves those who meet the litmus test and are striving to live and work within a military community.



Please elaborate; the OP has an opinion which has validity in many cases.  And as I said earlier, it is not the difference in opinion I have an issue with, it's the "I'm right because I have been here longer than you, and you're annoying me now so piss off" attitude that I have seen in response to questions that I have the issue with.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> Many people who have been around, no longer even read or answer the recruiting threads. Do You Know Why? I'll give you the first 50 repetitive questions before you figure it out. *Griffon, my respect to you to attempt to take on all recruiting questions. But you already self-limted your answers in your own post (# 23) by admitting you can only answers questions you know the answers to.*



At no point did I say that I would answer all recruiting questions.  And if people don't want to answer recruiting questions, they don't have to.  They don't have to flame the poster either.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> *Often, new people only want to hear from the SMEs who are living and doing the job now.* Those same SMEs are often, no longer participating in these threads because of expectations like the OP.



How does reading a necro post from four years ago give a person current and relevant information on how to become a {insert trade here}?  Things may, and have, changed a lot; there's a lot of value in the recency of the information.



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> Griffon has joined the site, agreed to the current rules, does not like them and is now redefining them all on his own to meet his own definition (#25).



Please cite said rules I am "redefining" so I may rectify my conduct (for the record, I just went through http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html, http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html, and http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/64206.0.html)



			
				kratz said:
			
		

> This site is NOT and Official Site and will never make any such claim. That being said, *with many current and past members of all ranks (literally), this site is one of the best sources for real answers* if you are willing to accept and work within the rules. Which all people who signed up "agreed to do", it is their failure if they do not follow site rules.



Agreed...for now at least.  I would like to remain in an open CF forum where I can seek information and provide answers freely and without judgement, and I hope that milnet.ca will remain that place.


----------



## kratz (24 Feb 2011)

Griffon,

I am not going to piss for post per post with you. I have stated my personal opinion only, if you need direct answers from me, before the DS say it, ask me on PM. Otherwise, my comments stand. 

In fairness, to answer necro posts. This phrase is too subjective to use as a defense when discussing a topic. Some people (this site) think a necro post if anything over 180 days. Most new people on this site think that if their question has not been asked in the past week if new....*pause*















Take some time and answer that one yourself.


----------



## mariomike (24 Feb 2011)

Mr. Wallace said something that I believe is relevant.
Topic: "On asking questions & hostile dog-pile replies." ( 4 pages ):
"That is what this is all about..........lazy people who want to be spoonfed eventually grating on the nerves of other site members.   This site is a good source of info, and even if that info may be dated, it is often still relevant.  I am sure at some time when this site was first created someone made a statement that the sky is blue.  Now that statement is over ten years old, but it still holds true.  Why must someone discard info here that wasn't created in the last 24 hours?  How often have we seen this?  Why must we put up with it?  We have seen people ask questions and then we have also seen people "with attitude" ask questions.  I would say that in the majority of cases the membership has been quite obliging to new members, until such time that some may show "attitude" and then we see the dogpiles."
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90702/post-894765.html#msg894765


----------



## denimboy (24 Feb 2011)

I'll risk my self replying to this thread.
As an active member of other forums, I can (and I'm sure many of you can) tell this issue is not specific to this forum.

*The fact that army.ca is a serious forum about army things, and specifically The Recruiting topic, I totally understand and agree that potential recruits should not be spoon fed and proper spelling should be respected. *With that being said...

I'm not taking part on either side. Both have arguments which I partially agree with. This is just my point of view. 

Let's just start by mentioning not every new member is familiar with forums and therefor may not know how to use the functions. 
There are MANY topics and thread subjects. They will eventually get to know their way around.
The rules are clear and everyone has to agree them. Unfortunately some people don't read and understand them and don't take the time to familiarize with the functions.

When someone is debuting his research on a potential career in the CF, he/she is probably not familiar with military terms and acronyms and even the recruiting process itself. IMHO, searching the forum can be difficult if you don't know what to search for in the first place. 
I would think this is the main reason of all the redundant threads. 

Newbies (let's say who registered less than two weeks ago) creating threads on discussed and answered questions will continue to happen everyday no matter what the outcome of this thread is. This is reality.

Now this is how *I think* the community should respond to newbie threads :

1) Moderators. There are many active moderators everyday on this forum. When such a thread is created, they will decide if it is redundant and/or is not relevant to the topic. If no actions are taken by the moderators (because they actually have lives and may not be present) the thread should remain "valid" and the replies accordingly and *see number 2*. No matter how much it frustrates you, the thread is created and the OT can't do nothing about it [the thread] except not doing it again.  They were not here a week ago and are not aware of the issue. You are then free to report the thread to a moderator. If the member as been on here for awhile, well this a different story as they should be more familiar with the forum and I'll let the moderator deal with it.

2) Now, some people actually do search and don't come up with answers. In this case, they either didn't search enough or the information found were old and/or incomplete. Anyone is free to answer *or not*. *Without actually doing the searching*, someone can point out *what to search for* (as many do already). This would help the OT in his/her research and if they get their answer by them self, they will likely repeat the process. Simply saying "search" is not much helpful when the question can't be summarized in keywords. Because we all know the search function is not 100% accurate. 

I have to say that being "hard" on newbies "works". But let's try to keep the flaming down. There is a difference on being direct and being harsh. Being harsh will provoke the person and start a never ending rant and this is also taking bandwidth. 

Summarized: There will always be newbie threads. Let the moderators do their thing. If you don't want to answer, don't. If you suggest to search, saying what to search for is more helpful than simply asking to search. And remember that not everyone is as familiar as you with the forum. Don't spoon feed, but don't flame either. If the member is purposely doing such threads, report to moderator. 

My  :2c:


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2011)

I've been on this site since 2004.........this argument, by a *vast minority * of individuals, occurs on a regular basis. That this site continues to grow as it does every single year means (IMHO) that we're not doing things wrong.

We (the larger, *majority*, we) have certain expectations and will likely continue to do so. If that doesnt work for some, i'm fine with that, there is always militaryphotos.net.


----------



## Griffon (24 Feb 2011)

denimboy, I completely agree with your statement, and i think you may have gotten your point across a little more eloquently than myself.  Thanks!

CDN Aviator, I understand your (and many other people's) opinion/stance on this issue, and I do not disagree.  The only point I was trying to make is that I think *some* individuals on this site go on the attack a bit too fast when somebody asks one of *those* questions *again*.  I am sure you are familiar with http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99479.0.html and http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/99454.0.html.  So yes, I get it.

I apologize if I may have ruffled a few feathers here, but I just wanted to point out that we don't need to paint all those that ask a question with the same broad brush and that we can be a little more diplomatic in adjusting unwanted behaviours.  And I think most of us are on the same page, for the most part anyways, on this issue.  And now on to other topics for me...


----------



## kratz (24 Feb 2011)

It's good to hear denimboy has gone through "pages on a topic", (#646), demonstrating an experienced 19 posts.  :-X I'm jumping on you for speaking up, I should walk away now, since your 19 posts and how many years of military experience trump site members? So starting unclear and unresearched new threads is ok according to denimboy.

I did not notice super-applicant can jump the CFAT queue in a single month and dictate his own training schedule Better yet, super-applicant is the SME on armour and will lead the way into 1212. Super-applicant (#14) finally admits defeat and he has to ask directions to Worthington Tank Park.


----------



## denimboy (24 Feb 2011)

Kratz, my last post applied to me as much as any other new member. As a newbie to this forum I did my share of mistakes, learned from it and keep learning everyday. My point of view still stands whether you agree or not.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2011)

denimboy said:
			
		

> My point of view still stands whether you agree or not.



You are, of course, entitled to your point of view. That does not, however, make you right. You point of view can "still stand" all it wants, we dont have to agree with you. Wether or not things change to suit your specific complaint is not for me to decide but if things stay the same, you will have to either accept it or leave.


----------



## denimboy (25 Feb 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You are, of course, entitled to your point of view. That does not, however, make you right. You point of view can "still stand" all it wants, we dont have to agree with you. Wether or not things change to suit your specific complaint is not for me to decide but if things stay the same, you will have to either accept it or leave.



Fair enough.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Feb 2011)

Since this deceased equine has been thoroughly thrashed once more, the discussion is now closed. Please link to this thread in your response the next time the issue is raised.

Thanks to all who participated.

Army.ca Staff


----------

