Timeline for Should we add "lmgtfy" to the blacklist?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 26, 2018 at 17:12 | history | edited | Run5k | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spelling and grammar fixes
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration
|
|
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:11 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| Oct 3, 2012 at 22:42 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | I've seen 4 LMGTFYs in the wild. None of the linked search results contained the answer to the question. In 3 of the 4, it turned out the OP had done research, and good googleable content simply didn't exist (they just forgot to say so). In one case, result #2 in the LMGTFY page was the person's own question!! People who LMGTFY rarely bother to check that the question is actually googlable. Worse: in all cases after the LMGTFY, the questions got heaps of downvotes from people who assumed from the fact a LMGTFY link had been posted that the question must be googleable. Ugly. | |
| Oct 2, 2012 at 10:38 | comment | added | HaydnWVN | If the OP's answer is easily found by googling (usually with multiple thousands of results) then why does that OP deserve a full and concise reply regurgitating all the information they could have easily found themselves with a little research? The majority of the time these 'drop in' OP's do not return, do not do any basic research and do not conform to or read the FAQ/guidelines. Shouldn't we save our time and resources for the loyal returning user who asks complete, concise and researched questions? | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 15:30 | comment | added | Tamara Wijsman | Or perhaps you are far too non serious about the whole thing; if you need a LMGTFY link to make a point, you're doing it wrong because you yourself aren't identifying whether the link you give actually results in useful results. Why link to a query if you can link to the result? Why be condescending or rude when you can help out the person while telling him we expect some prior research. We have the low quality filter in place for people that decide to repeat asking such questions, we should have a filter in place for people that post careless LMGTFY links everywhere as well... | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 8:19 | history | edited | Sathyajith BhatMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 156 characters in body
|
| Oct 1, 2012 at 7:55 | comment | added | ChrisF | Are you aware that it is blacklisted on Stack Overflow? | |
| Oct 1, 2012 at 7:40 | history | answered | HaydnWVN | CC BY-SA 3.0 |