Over sensitivity

[Former Member]

While reading the Workflow Forum, I came across the . It became a discussion over the use of Urgent and the matter of what questions should be answered. To my mind this brings up a problem which we should address.

In this case, the question was basically ignored when the answer should have been something like: "here is the basic answer, but this is the way you should look at it". What we had was someone from a more "classic"ABAP background asking questions about workflow reporting. We should be reading the questions with a thought to why they are being asked and how we can phrase a response to assist and educate the questioner, with the aim of everyone moving forward.

This would mean that I would hopefully find on sites less uninformed solutions based around bootstrapping a technology, and more solutions using a correct and logical use of the technology.

In short, we are getting overly focussed on what is 'wrong', and less on how we can assist people to learn. If we take the view that you must be a genius to ask questions, then I wonder who will be left with the 'qualifications' to ask.

It is true there are a lot of time-wasters out there (although I would argue the overall percentage is low) but if the question is too silly/lazy/fatuous then the best response is not to answer. They will be fielded and possibly mislead by 'point-hunters' at any rate. (My answer to this is to reward all points with a tshirt saying 'I am a complete idiot and get my clothes from IT fora"). But if the question is a sincere quest for knowledge and understanding, then it really is evident in the text.

At some stage we have all felt ignorant or even scared by something which is new to us, and I think we should all bear this in mind when answering forum questions, with the exception of the truly omnipient.

You know it makes sense.

Gareth

[Former Member]

> We should be reading the

> questions with a thought to why they are being asked

If someone urgently needs to know the names of tables, it's either because he's managed to bluff his way into a role he can't actually perform, or he's about to try to.

If we take the view that you must be a genius

> to ask questions, then I wonder who will be left with

> the 'qualifications' to ask.

I don't see where anyone suggested that.

> At some stage we have all felt ignorant or even

> scared by something which is new to us, and I think

> we should all bear this in mind when answering forum

> questions, with the exception of the truly

> omnipient.

But we (or at least I) didn't abuse internet forums to leech other people's knowledge and experience. The fact that the internet wasn't invented then is merely a coincidence.

[Former Member]

Hi NXO

To a degree I agree that if someone if trying to bluff their way in, then they should stew in their own juices. What I am more concerned about is that the question itself rings some warning bells to me. If someone is thinking of programmatically aceessing workflow tables in the first instance, it leads me to suspect they do not know how workflow actually works, which is why I suggested to the person to use the WAPI functions. At least with this knowledge, their attempt to bootstrap workflow will be conducted in a way which will not be risky to the overall system.

> If we take the view that you must be a genius

> to ask questions, then I wonder who will be left with

> the 'qualifications' to ask.

> I don't see where anyone suggested that.

The suggestion is my own as an extrapolation of where we go if we are too protective of the forums.

> If someone urgently needs to know the names of tables, it's either because

> he's managed to bluff his way into a role he can't actually perform, or he's about

> to try to.

Maybe not. When running a workflow course a few years ago I was asked the same question (without the "urgently") by a person who had many years ABAP experience, because they had the impression you could "shortcut" a solution by placing all logic outside of the workflow tempate model. At the end of the course they had recognised this wasn't a good way to do things and had discounted the idea.

Point is, have you noticed the quality of reply appears to correlate to the quality of the question in a lot of cases as more and more people simply decide not to answer overly simple or silly questions. And if the point system wasn't around, I believe most stupid questions would go unanswered.

< But we (or at least I) didn't abuse internet forums to leech other people's

> knowledge and experience. The fact that the internet wasn't invented then is

> merely a coincidence.

Finally, as someone else whose professional career predates the internet, I agree that things these days require a lot less work than it used to, and there is far more methods of getting a quick leg up without doing the work, but I am pretty certain such people get found out, along with those who pad their resumes and cheat in interviews.

But there is a number of consultants (I think of them as the SAP diaspora) who go from country to country as they fail to complete a project or unit of work successfully. I have often thought that coming clean and asking for help and mentoring would have reaped them better returns. And once again I have digressed.

Cheers

Gareth

Message was edited by:

Gareth Ellem

[Former Member]

> If someone is thinking of programmatically aceessing workflow tables in the

> first instance, it leads me to suspect they do not know how workflow

> actually works, which is why I suggested to the person to use the

> WAPI functions.

Thing is, to many here[1] that would be considered an unhelpful response, because you didn't answer the question they asked. It's also an affront because you're telling them that they're going about it the wrong way. Now if they'd asked the question in a different way to start with - goal, not method - it's be different. See some of my posts in the MM forums. In this case it's the users, but it's the same principle.

> Maybe not. When running a workflow course a few years ago I was asked

> the same question (without the "urgently")

Without the urgent it's hardly the same point I made. I'll say it again, nobody urgently needs to know questions like "what tables do X Y Z" like that. Urgent isn't a synonym of important.

I'll add that for abap roles it is a common subject for interview questions, hence my suspicions.

> Point is, have you noticed the quality of reply appears to correlate to the

> quality of the question in a lot of cases

Positively or negatively?

[1] Clarify: I'm not among them. I believe the best way to get a right answer is to ask the right question.

[Former Member]

> Thing is, to many here[1] that would be considered an

> unhelpful response, because you didn't answer the

> question they asked. It's also an affront because

> you're telling them that they're going about it the

> wrong way. Now if they'd asked the question in a

> different way to start with - goal, not method - it's

> be different. See some of my posts in the MM forums.

> In this case it's the users, but it's the same

> principle.

Well you've got me there. The difficulty is the answers to this question, and many others of the same ilk, have the answers either here, or on SAP help. It's not like they're hidden but noone seems to find them. Perhaps its like when my kids can't find something in their room - because they would rather <i>I</i> looked for it.

On the other hand, I have (and think perhaps you have) enjoyed this thread more than the one we're discussing.

Cheers

Gareth

[martin_nooteboom]

Hi Gareth,

I agree with you. The forums should be there to learn and teach. My reply here is not because I feel attacked or offended or whatever by this post, but because I want to shed some light why I posted my first reply.

Maybe because of the lack of a moderator, but there are a lot of questions which are not according the forum guidelines. I sometimes try to point people to the fact that they should post questions according the guidelines. This partly because we are loosing some very experienced contributors from the forum because of the noise. We are in danger of ending up with a forum which will only have cut and paste answers or some derivative of these kind of answers. Basically only give the basic answer for the points and don't think any further.

I know one is looking into finding a moderator so I hope when we have one things will get better.

Regards,

Martin

[Former Member]

>. The forums should be there to learn and teach.

Along that line of thought, not quite sure if Rich was really serious

Arya

[RichHeilman]

Actually Arya, I was serious in the post. I do have such a program which works quite well. I remember sending the code to him and it worked out good. Why re-invent the wheel, right? Anyway, to expand on that, the reason that I didn't post the code directly in the program, is because, 1) I am not 100% comfortable of giving 100% complete solutions in the forums, Why? Because the original poster will not learn anything. But in this case, the requirement was pretty specific, and I had a direct match with the program. 2) Also, this program was a little messy due to the fact that it uses BDC, and I do not like giving complete code out that uses BDC as they will most likely break across releases.

Anyway, since I was mentioned, I figured I would comment.

Regards,

Rich Heilman

[Former Member]

You didn't accidentally send the one that deletes random records from T000, TFDIR and BKPF, then? It's an easy mistake. Really. Could happen to anyone.

Have a good weekend, y'all.

[marilyn_pratt]

Thank you Gareth. It does seem refreshing to read a reminder to focus back on the essential reason for creating and participating in these forums: to learn from others and to support and educate. Those who believe that there is nothing more to learn and no one worth teaching probably <i>should</i> retire from the arena. Those who prefer a more learned and exclusive environment will be happy when we launch areas where only the qualified and initiated provide the content.