I think this is a good start, a work in progress. With my newbie hat on, the first thing I see is just a load of text, and this turns me off. I want instant gratification. I think the first thing to do would be to divide this into sections, e.g. how to test distros; types of distros; a small list of distros with their difficult levels; hardware considerations; easy vs simple.

Also - bullet points, bullet points, bullet points - especially necessary in your distro list section - those easy-to-spot, easily digestible bullet points are going to be the first thing that many newbies will look for. Also consider that a lot of newbies are not going to read the text from beginning to end at first, but they're going to instantly look for the first thing they came to find - distros: keep them localised in your distro list, and also make it easy for the reader to dot around and get drawn to the rest of the article.

I think really the main thing here is structure rather than content. You have the latter, so just work a little more on the former.

While I do agree with your blog post to a large degree...

You seem to make the assumption that because someone wants to make the switch to Linux: they must also want to learn the inner workings of it, and learn exactly how the system works. I think this is probably one of things that makes it harder for an OP to get clear answers when a number of different members respond, and therefore recommend a number of different distros - often distros that conflict with assumptions made by members concerned. For example, someone recommends Ubuntu, then someone else recommends AntiX, then someone else says "hey! they must want to learn exactly how things work, that's why they want Linux!", then someone recommends Slackware, or LFS... and it goes downhill from there.

Also...

...why do you think that someone new to Linux wouldn't learn much from Ubuntu? I do agree that Ubuntu is a "hold your hand" type distro, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't learn anything from it, so I don't agree with that. They could still open up a terminal and learn the command-line, various commands, apt/dpkg, etc. They could also still look in /etc and look at how things are configured. All of which would still "teach" them about the inner workings of the system.

1 members found this post helpful.

Too much detail! The last thing I want is to include a list of distros and their qualities. That could go on for ever and it duplicates what Distrowatch already does. The idea is to outline some of the questions they might want to ask before researching further and then point them on to Distrowatch for more info.
You're certainly right about bullet points. I've added them and I agree that it makes the article more readable.

OP was too lazy to google for the best therefore I think OP will not be able to read/understand that post too. And, actually, that link is definitely not the best (so will be ignored)

I thought I'd made it clear that people differ on that point. Some people have a need to understand their system and some just want a system that is secure and does what they want it to. Knowing which category you fall into is important in deciding what kind of distro you would be happiest with.
Good point. But I think psychologically it's easier to study your system when it's smaller and less tightly integrated. For example (as I discovered when I used Ubuntu years ago), you can't slim it down by removing what you don't need because everything seems to depend on everything else. And I think it's easier to learn the command line if you don't have seductively easy graphical tools to do the job for you.

You misunderstand my point - these are all things you've already done - you just needed to structure them better. It's getting there - and looking a lot better.

But this is the thing though, and to add to what I said before; when you have several people responding to the same thread making several different assumptions (particularly when the OP doesn't give enough details about their experience and wants/needs), this is when the thread goes downhill rapidly. Not everyone does want to learn the inner workings of a Linux distribution(s), I've seen many times here that some just want something that "isn't Windows" and don't really care about how Linux works - as long as it "isn't Windows". So I personally think it's pretty flawed to make assumptions, particularly that they want to become an expert on "how Linux works/the inner workings of Linux".

And also to add to what I was saying above, by the end of it, the OP is likely more confused than they were before they posted the thread. pan64 among others also make very good points in that, not only that if the OP hasn't bothered to do much (if any) research of their own before posting their thread, they aren't likely to read a long post trying to figure out which "camp" they fall into, and they are still going to be faced with a myriad of choices anyway. If they even know themselves exactly what kind of distro they want in the first place - which they probably don't know.

That's why IMHO it's best to just give them the suitable possibilities and let them decide which one they like best, rather than trying to decide for them. Personally, other than in very special cases, I'd say threads asking "which distro is best for me" are pointless. I can understand why people ask the question, but given the above, it's largely pointless. But banning such threads is also pointless, given that wouldn't solve the problem anyway, and kinda defeats the point of having a forum to begin with.

If he just wants something that "isn't Windows", then any reasonably newbie-friendly Linux distro would do and it doesn't really matter which one he chooses. He might as well make his choice with a blindfold and a pin.

What I've tried to ask is: "What kind of person are you? What do you want from your system? And what would really bug you about it?"

It won't make a choice for them but it will remind them of what kind of points to have in mind when reading other people's recommendations.

Thanks for the feedback. We have no plan to ban these type of threads at LQ. That said, always happy to discuss how we can better respond to often asked open ended questions.

--jeremy

2 members found this post helpful.

And that sums up the futile nature of sticky threads, rules, guidelines, etc, very nicely...

2 members found this post helpful.

So the tenor seems to be "No, because we want to remain newbie friendly".

I don't see why this is not newbie friendly, or how these things even connect (lots of "non-newbs" also post empty questions).
Other LQ rules could be construed to push away newbies, too: no leet/txtspeak for example. And just like it is practiced with those, I specifically suggested:
In other words: just like it happens with many other LQ rules, they are only enforced when things get out of hand.
Just thought we could weed out some of the truly pointless threads here.

Well, I'm a bit late to my own party, the jeremy has already spoken.

It doesn't mean sticky threads, rules, guidelines, etc aren't useful. Any civilized society has laws against things like murder, rape, etc, and needs such laws, otherwise nobody could be held to account, and nobody would be safe. It doesn't mean nobody is going to break the law, rules, etc. But it's still a much better situation if people CAN still be held to account if they did break such laws, rules, etc.

My point above was that putting people into "camps" and saying things like "they must want to become a world-renowned expert on Linux, therefore don't use Ubuntu, but use XXXX distro instead - because you won't learn anything by using Ubuntu" is that it doesn't encourage people to actually try other distros. And effectively limits their choices, when we should be encouraging people to try some distros, and letting THEM decide which one they pick. We shouldn't be deciding for people, we should only be guiding them IMHO. Mill J's sticky about choosing a distro tells people what things they should consider when deciding for themselves - this is what the forum exists for - not to dictate based on assumptions. And if you look at the view count of the relevant sticky threads, then clearly people ARE reading them. Just because some don't, that doesn't mean nobody is. Hazel's blog post would likely be more useful for those answering such posts more than people who are completely new to Linux. Again, the problem is the sheer number of choices, so if that's confusing in itself; how do we expect the same person to decide which "camp" they fit into? Well, I think that's likely going to be a tall order. This was my point.

My point is that the people breaking the rules or ignoring the guidelines are the ones who are not reading them and have no interest in doing so. This is not quite the same thing as "laws", there is a difference - as no one is expecting to go to prison for ignoring a "guideline" on a forum such as this one after all.

Facing facts, you're often dealing with people who want "instant results" and a choice of distribution is no different to any other question one might encounter here. When faced with "too many" choices, which could probably be narrowed down with a little thought/research to less than 10, there are still "too many choices" for some and at that point it probably becomes bewildering or more likely time consuming.

I agree completely and in that a canned response isn't really needed here. Mainly because a canned response should not narrow choices, it should not make specific recommendations and that the response would need to be maintained to ensure that it didn't become dated/obsolete like so many sticky threads. By being so neutral and non committal and by not promoting anything in particular, the canned response becomes essentially useless - possibly increasing the perceived number of choices rather than assisting in narrowing them down.

In my opinion, this is an age old question and not really a "problem" as such - and lists of recommendations from various users, based on any criteria or a link to distrowatch or similar are perfectly valid responses.

If someone read posts from ten posters recommending different things - then presumably they freely decide on which are the best recommendations for their use case?

If the post lacks information - e.g. a simple "which is the best post", then as ever it's up to those responding to decide whether to request more info, whether to post a link or whether to respond at all.

As I see it anyway, it would be too specific and would need to fall under a more general "posting without adding any relevant information" clause - even then it's still problematic and open to interpretation.

LQ rules do not currently contain any "post construction" type clauses (except for maybe the homework and leet speak clauses) - the rules are mostly about conduct, etc. If they were to get into the realms of the technicalities of post construction, that would be opening a huge can of worms and they would become a "wall of text", which would be completely ignored by the vast majority of users. Rules and guidelines tend to lead to even more rules and guidelines and accusations of double standards, hypocrisy omission, unfairness, etc, when those rules aren't applied to the letter. I can fully appreciate why any shrewd forum admin would not want to get into that.

It's also off putting, not just to "newbies", but to anyone really, to anyone considering participating in a forum where there are grumpy types picking holes in post construction, grammar and linking to articles about "how to ask a question", which I've seen at some other sites.

I feel the forum is always going to experience poor thread questions.

We gain nothing by banning valid content which we happen to judge to be substandard. Said judgment is always too subjective.

I continue to recall Jeremy's position that LQ should be a welcoming community.

I feel people many times contribute to their own frustration on the subject of trying to contend with answering poor questions.

(Sometimes you write it all and don't post it, ... sometimes you post it. Fence side decided, sorry for the length )
For myself and for when I take the time to think, some can opine this may is sometimes rare occurrence:

1. If the question is very poor, but another member has already given guidance to improve the question, I'll consider this and consider not adding any further replies.
   I may reply, but I try to ensure that I'm adding to the thread, and not just a simple addition such as a one line additional recommendation.
2. I try to avoid guessing or extending the OP's question in any manner, or I'm very clear that I've made a guess and explain my requests for more information.
3. Too often we see very lengthy threads from a single question by an OP and as the thread progresses, we'll see some varied interpretations of their problem:
   1. Distortion of the original question where things are surmised and discussed that were never part of the original question.
   2. Arguments between existing LQ members about the problem or solutions, all sans any further participation by the OP.
   3. One or more persons pointing out the obvious deviations which have occurred from the original question, along with the non reappearance of the OP.
   I try to remind myself that some threads get out of hand, and many times without any OP replies.
4. We cannot avoid spammers, intentional trolls, harsh minded persons, we can only recognize these things and contend with them as they appear, or once they've shown their tendencies.
5. I've noticed that moods change, there are times where tempers flare and this situation comes and goes.
6. Two very difficult types of situations I see are:
   1. Subtle questioners. Those who ask questions which are open to interpretation or unclear, they do participate in return, and they do more than one word replies, but they are continually asking open-ended questions of no purpose and not really working towards some real problem. These frustrate some users and sometimes if it gets out of hand it will take a while for forum administrators to make a determination that the user has behaved improperly. In fact this has come up and a clear statement was that 'a user can post nothing but questions and do this to excess as long as their questions are ones which they follow up on if there is a lack of clarity with their original question', and this is true. It does not allay the points that there are some users who seem to have agendas and also seem to never research things before asking questions. Just noting that it's not always a simple situation.
   2. Excessive answer givers. Response givers who are very prolific with their posting and offering of "beyond complete" solutions for either normal or inadequate questions.
      
      The LQ forums I started with had the ideals that we are here to help, but not provide initial and complete solutions because the OP should learn how to help their self. We should help, but not overdo it.
      
      Sometimes I've seen a great deal of help having been just given to an OP's technical question when to me it is unclear what the OP is asking, or if it is clear but they have done absolutely nothing to research it, we may still see some full service assistance provided and then subsequently discussed and refined.
      
      I sometimes wonder who is getting more out of the OPs question, the missing OP, or the answer refiner who has been diligently working on an OPs technical problem for some very lengthy time. My answer here considering that I do not have tons of free time to do my own things, is that the answer refiner is losing their time. But, it is their time, not mine.
7. Regarding being either "here or there" for fixed information, I find that I've very much become "there", which is to say that I prefer to give some details of my own design and do not offer sticky thread links up in blithe fashion.

1 members found this post helpful.

I'm glad that such questions are not to be banned — the people who ask them have a valid problem. One might with more reason criticise those who always recommend their own distro, or something completely unsuitable for a beginner. Pointing people to a sticky is no solution. The "50 replacements for XP", for example, is both out of date and factually inaccurate. I raised that in this area and even sent a message to its author, but no-one took any notice and so I gave up.