A bit off topic, but it is so interesting to read this thread. It already starts with the initial ‘request’ of the requestor.
“i have tired everything even asking an AI, …”
Then ‘wxl’ is very polite, and tries his best to be extremely helpful.
I’ve been playing with AI a bit, and it is utterly useless. Hey, we are intelligent humans, and we are capable of searching and filtering ourselves, and don’t need this marketing gimmick.
IMHO, AI is just a display of how quickly those energy slurping algorithms can come up with a platitude of answers, that maybe only kindergarten kids should appreciate.
“Hats off” (translated from an expression that originates in the sports world in my native tongue, which means: “you’ve done well beyond expectations”), Wxl! A daunting task.
I hope that spaceranger was able to continue with the help ‘wxl’ gave (or will give).
Perhaps this forum needs some kind of Code of Conduct, that stipulates and regulates which questions to look into seriously. One chapter of such a CoC should be which areas are covered under which conditions, and hence, which aren’t.
Moving this to a new topic because it’s not really relevant to the support topic it came from and also, because there’s an interesting suggestion in it.
I certainly have feelings about AI, but that’s not the thing I wanted to discuss.
The thing is this idea of “code of conduct.” Technically, we do have a code of conduct: the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. I think we could make that a little more obvious. However, what that does is govern appropriate social behaviors.
What it seems @Fritz was discussing is more like a formalized set of expectations as it relates to support. Am I right about that? Could you expound a little bit more on what you’re thinking?
In a way it is a bad thing, as a result of the limited traffic here, but you, and others, are very eager to “jump” on any question that shows up, and be polite and ask for more details, and explain things that are actually simple to provide by the person who has a problem (and necessary). There is no harm in trying to be helpful, but it costs time.
Although I like Discourse, maybe it is not the best thing for letting the general public ask specific questions (specific, but in fact often very vague questions).
I often wonder if this forum is moderated in any way, or just depending on the good behaviour of its users. I don’t see obvious spam or ads. But this is not the issue here.
You should decide where to draw the line.
For instance, are “we done” when an user gets the proper result when issuing “dig lubuntu.com”? This command is very conclusive about the state of the system and internet access (perhaps ‘dig’ must be installed; did not check that).
I’d say any user land related question is out of bounds. Problems with Bluetooth? Running Lubuntu on a recent desktop where the WiFi adapter is not (yet) supported? So be it? Or…? And what is user land exactly? BT, WiFi, or just general questions about LibreOffice?
So, best thing is to compile a set of bullets that must be answered, before the question is accepted. Not sure Discourse supports this.
If you try to post a new message to the Lubuntu Support category, you see this at the top of your compose window:
<!--IMPORTANT:
Please make sure before you post, you have read the instructions!
https://discourse.lubuntu.me/t/about-the-lubuntu-support-category
⋮
When posting your question, post below this line -->
That said, I would urge you to look at the linked post and tell me what you think is missing and/or could be improved:
I think what could be useful to add (for bugs or problems) is;
Steps to Reproduce.
(preferably from live iso or fresh install).
It’s so common for posters to assume somebody out there has the same setup as themselves, that they just leave out details, which leads to a lot of back and forth questions.
Very good, but in general, this Discourse is not exactly the best place to discuss this details, or even ask members of the public to respond. Because it is internal business of your project. I like to read about it, but you should do this internally at your own private communication channels.
There are occasionally issues that require a degree of private conversation to handle correctly, but those are very rare indeed. This is certainly not one of them.
That said, I’d still love to hear your feedback, especially in light of what I’ve shared about what actually exists.
