Responding to Posts - Needed Information?

[db]

I'm not sure where to put this, and the title might be a bit misleading (I intentionally named it that so it would be read). But here goes…

I was teaching an internal auditor class and, like always, I mentioned the Cove. One of the attendees visits the Cove from time to time, but had a complaint. The complaint is that often someone asks a question and the response is to read the Standard, or the responder just quotes the Standard. It tends to make some folks feel somewhat intimidated; after all, if they could understand what the Standard is saying, they probably would not have asked the question. They often don't push the issue because they feel like they should know what the Standard means, so their real question doesn't get answered.

I realize that I am guilty of responding to requests this way as well.

Now, I doubt that this person is the only one who feels this way. When we quote the Standard, it would probably be beneficial for us to unpack the quote a bit. Undoubtedly, the person who is asking the question really wants an interpretation of what the Standard says, not just someone quoting something they already can read.

Just thought I would bring this up.

[CINDY]

I have to agree.

I have often asked for clarification from MIOSHA, EPA or what ever only to receive a specific quote to the exact area my question came from. I know where I got my question from, I just want answers to my questions!

If I had understood the specific quote to begin with, I would not have asked for clarification..........

I may not have experienced that here, but I am sure it is experienced.

I just realized that that may be why I never respond with element numbers or verbatim quotes from the standards.

Very good point db.

[D.Scott]

I certainly see what you are saying but in defense of some of my replies, we don't always know that they have read the standard. I think if a statement is made like "I don't understand QS-9000 4.1.2a", it would prompt some sort of narative interpretation. If the post states "Does QS say we need to prevent the occurance of nonconformities?" I would imagine the reply would be a quote of the standard.

I am not meaning to put extra burden on those asking the question but I think the burden is on the asker to clarify what sort of answer they are looking for.

Another way to look at the complaint would be your student is saying the ANSWER to his querry is "Read the Standard". That would be just plain rude and I don't think any of us would do that (well ...).

The final point I would make is if someone doesn't get the answer they needed, they should push it. If a Cove member sees a question has been answered and the asker has dropped it, it is generally felt they got the information they needed. Like everything else in the quality field, don't just accept something. Keep digging until you find the answers to the real questions.

Just my opinion.

Dave

I also have to agree that sometimes the response by some is a little curt. Some people who know the standard, not all, forget that not all of us are as knowledgable as they think they are. But, I can assure you that anybody calling anybody "stupid" here would get some flak and not just from moderators. I also do not like to see the cut and paste answers, unless as Dave said, they are looking for a specific section of the standard to address a particular situation. Having said that, it is the responsibility of the person seeking a response to continue posting until they are satisfied and not be intimidated by those demonstrate little tolerance for what they consider basic questions. I've seen it in the past, but not lately. The atmosphere here has changed slightly and there are great responses from many members eager to help. Tell those students not to be stupid and join the Cove.

[SteelMaiden]

I really gotta agree with D here, I see someone ask, someone answer and then no further dialogue from the "asker" I figure they got what they wanted and I may not add anything. Yes, sometimes we do just rattle off the standard, but I haven't seen too much of that lately since the "big shake-up". Take care!

[Randy]

OK....I'll confess....I've done it Most of the time though my intent is to encourage folks to "READ", meaning to digest or look into, and not "read", meaning just going thru the motion of looking at the words.

Nobody particular, Bud. I have also used the "do a search" first, then come back if you still need answers. That can be considered crude, if someone wants to be taken by the hand. Oh no, did I just say that?

[db]

Originally Posted by energy

I have also used the "do a search" first, then come back if you still need answers.

I think that is different (although it too can be done in a rough manner). And although the student did not use the word "stupid", I've seen times where that tone was implied.

Originally Posted by Randy

I'll confess....I've done it. Most of the time though my intent is to encourage folks to "READ", meaning to digest or look into, and not "read", meaning just going thru the motion of looking at the words.

So have I, but I can also see where it could stop someone, who is not nearly as brash as a few of us, from asking deeper questions. Rather than "look stupid", they just sit quietly, with their question unanswered.