I wouldnāt phrase it as āstatusā. If someoneās goal is to write a post that will be especially valuable to many people who read it here, that could entail trying to save readersā time by skimming past concepts they likely know well.
I donāt care how much EA material an author has read; I care how helpful I find their post in accomplishing or understanding something. It just happens to be the case that an understanding of prior material seems to make posts more helpful, on average.
Oh, now I see that what I wrote is a bit off what I intended, sorry. I was mainly explaining that this was my way of showing conformity to (how I interpret) The Way Things Work Here, not that one should do that to achieve higher status or that I think that status in EA is very important to achieve.
As you say, and for the same reasons, I agree that it is very helpful for people to read up on similar EA content. However, I am not sure how much is it important for people to also link to relevant sources and explain the connections, which is more what I was going for.
Makes senseāāThe Way Things Workā still feels a little too āofficialā, but I agree that doing background reading is helpful and recommended (I like the list of recommendations here)
Linking is important when you cite someoneās work and can be a useful way to avoid having to write a lot of stuff yourself, but if it flows better to write up your own explanation of some common concept, I donāt see a problem with that.
hmm I was using āThe Way Things Work Hereā sarcastically (I think in a similar tone to how I was addressing status in the previous comment). So Iām taking away that in the internet no one know that you are a troll, or something like that š
I took your meaning to be somewhat sarcastic, but wanted to clarify for anyone else who might stumble across the conversation. I try to keep my meaning fairly literal on the Forum, in part for the large number of readers for whom English isnāt their first language.
I wouldnāt phrase it as āstatusā. If someoneās goal is to write a post that will be especially valuable to many people who read it here, that could entail trying to save readersā time by skimming past concepts they likely know well.
I donāt care how much EA material an author has read; I care how helpful I find their post in accomplishing or understanding something. It just happens to be the case that an understanding of prior material seems to make posts more helpful, on average.
Oh, now I see that what I wrote is a bit off what I intended, sorry. I was mainly explaining that this was my way of showing conformity to (how I interpret) The Way Things Work Here, not that one should do that to achieve higher status or that I think that status in EA is very important to achieve.
As you say, and for the same reasons, I agree that it is very helpful for people to read up on similar EA content. However, I am not sure how much is it important for people to also link to relevant sources and explain the connections, which is more what I was going for.
Makes senseāāThe Way Things Workā still feels a little too āofficialā, but I agree that doing background reading is helpful and recommended (I like the list of recommendations here)
Linking is important when you cite someoneās work and can be a useful way to avoid having to write a lot of stuff yourself, but if it flows better to write up your own explanation of some common concept, I donāt see a problem with that.
hmm I was using āThe Way Things Work Hereā sarcastically (I think in a similar tone to how I was addressing status in the previous comment). So Iām taking away that in the internet no one know that you are a troll, or something like that š
I appreciate the clarifications.
I took your meaning to be somewhat sarcastic, but wanted to clarify for anyone else who might stumble across the conversation. I try to keep my meaning fairly literal on the Forum, in part for the large number of readers for whom English isnāt their first language.