I recently got Hoikas pissed. So much so he actually posted as much. All of this was because I made a post in a request for features thread that he considered as addressed in a recent Korman update.
I was admonished because there was a feeling, I had ignored the associated Wiki update.
To be fair to Hoikas this was correct I had not looked at the “Recent Changes Page”.
To be fair and by way of an excuse at the time I was unaware of a "Recent Changes Page” and as I have said before I am the idiot here.
The point I want to make is the Wiki may be considered as well documented but that has to be subjective.
You have to accept that as an idiot here asking the idiot questions and yes, the answer may be in the Wiki and it may be documented in "Recent Changes” but that only works if I know about "Recent Changes" (Which I do now) and that I then understand everything I find there.
Now how do I feel when upon research I find the “Recent Changes Page” indicates pages that have changed and who changed them with no detail of the changes. Consider such changes may be as simple as a spelling or grammatical correction up to and including a total rewrite of a page.
While I have no doubt there are significant changes made in the Journal writing procedure now, I have been to that Wiki page and I accept that Hoikas has done wonders in Korman 0.80 to reform the Journal writing procedure.
You have however also have to accept that when you write a Wiki entry for any change be it large or small you are in a position of prior knowledge that the Wiki reader does not have. All I can add is the resulting rewrite has some of these failings for example there is an assumption that the reader knows how to add and manipulate a text entry in blender.
As for searching the Wiki it will quite often yield no results because the searcher does not know the nomenclature.
Note: case in point the only reason I know the word Nomenclature (Yes, it is Latin) is from my days in the RAF where it appeared on a job card over the box where relatively uneducated motor mechanic (me) was expected to write in the name of the part fitted. Until I was told that Nomenclature meant name of part I was running blind.
When I write I try to make things as Noob proof as possible (consider my instructions for building a dirtsand shard) this is a case of explaining every term in detail and about not making any assumptions about the reader. English may not even be their first language hell they may even be trying to read it using a translation tool.
I have considered posting this set of instructions in the Wiki but given that I am the idiot here I feel frightened I will incur the wrath of the Wiki moderators. Considering I was chided for having the temerity of posting a request that had already been addressed. While I may be an idiot, I am not beyond education and I am prepared to study and work towards an understanding.
Now a thread about wanted features, If I ask for a feature that is already there, I expect to be called an idiot and given a pointer. However, calling me an idiot and telling me it is well documented in the Wiki does not always mean I have NOT looked in the Wiki I refer you to my earlier search statement.
Consider that It may suggest that I have been to the Wiki and either not understood or heaven forbid it may not be as well documented as the writer believed it to be.
Now I consider myself reprimanded for responding badly to being told by Hoikas he was pissed and to making a list in a thread that was asking for wanted features with the alternative being multiple posts and, I would by way of explanation, in the past, I have found that separate posts not to work because invariably some get passed over. There is also the consideration that the requests in a list are in most cases related. In the example that pissed Hoikas they were all about Journals.
Now the thing about a list is you can point out the errors (stuff that is already done) then the person making a list can strike out those parts of the list that are addressed. Hoikas has made it clear he does not like deletion. A list does keep all the related requests in one place.
In a separate post I was reprimanded for not looking in the Wiki and then the reprimand concludes with the excuse that the Wiki is incomplete you cannot have it both ways you either accept that I may be an idiot and both the Wiki and the reader have failings. Or you have a Wiki that is the font of all knowledge and your editors are both all knowing and infallible and, I suspect the former and it may be necessary to review and edit the pages to provide clarity.
I believe it would be easier for you to consider me an idiot that has an ability to ask those stupid questions and, make clarification to already fixed solutions that may require some detailed guidance because sure a hell I will thank people for the guidance and write it up in a way suitable for the other idiots following me if that is required.
I consider you do not want to do "hand holding" that is understood. The alternative means that Korman is for total experts only? Or do you hand hold a few selected idiots and use their feedback to refine the Wiki such that it then just becomes a case of pointing the future potential hand holder at the correct Wiki page. Or if nothing else tell them the correct search parameter.
All to often I have been suggested a fix only to find that the suggestion lacks finesse of clarity.
A case in point I recently asked a question about exporting an age for encrypted inclusion on a dirtsand shard (Don’t answer this here I have posted a clarification request elsewhere) and it was suggested that I consider full game export "Package Age" option in the World panel? Now I have looked in the world panel and can’t find a reference to “Package Age”
Now while the suggestion may be valid the specific suggestion is not obvious and therefore sends the questioner in this case me, on a frustrating wild goose chase. Only to bring them back looking an even bigger idiot. What is more is it may have not been the correct answer in the first place. Go Figure.
Some may misinterpret my frustration and satire as anger all I can say is I have grown up (62-year-old, Old fart as well as an idiot) in a world where the default method to defuse tension is humour and self deprecation. I am also British you may also have to take that on board. As a Brit I can accept being an idiot we do in general however have a history of not responding well to directed anger. Telling me you were pissed at me was directed and personal. I was prepared to accept correction, direction admonishment. Just stop with the Lemon and Corkscrew because all bitter and twisted is unbecoming and only invites the same in response.