Why Do They Do That?

Why do people go to the trouble to sign up to a site and post a question but never return to look at the responses? That is why I seldom respond to new posts from new members, but sometimes the thread takes on an life of it's own and a lively discussion gets going.

 

Could it be that an established member was too embarrassed to ask the question and created a second ID to see how everyone else responds?

 

(Asking for a friend.)

I'd guess at least some, who have asked specific gear related questions, have got the info they need and go on about their business without acknowledgment. I particularly think that with those whose posts hint that they have had no previous interest in photography. It is also possible that some of the "lively discussions" might confuse or intimidate. Just my opinion.

Cynical, although admittedly I have the advantage that the regulars on the Nikon forum already know I'm an idiot, so I know that I can ask stupid questions under my real name without lowering their opinion of me.

 

I assume some people don't realise that this isn't a real help service, it's just a few interested photography geeks posting replies out of the kindness of their hearts, and if it takes more than a couple of minutes to respond then they'll go away and try elsewhere (or have better luck Googling a second time). And yes, others will feel they got answered and not feel the need to report back (especially if we've diverged).

 

While I hope it's not intimidating, I don't particularly think a mildly off-topic discussion is harmful (and may interest the original poster) - so long as we've actually answered the question and don't go too crazy. It would certainly be nice to know whether we actually answered it as well as we think we did, though - and it's always nice to know if you've actually helped someone. I do try to be on relatively good behaviour in this forum, though.

Why do people go to the trouble to sign up to a site and post a question but never return to look at the responses?

You can read them here but also (after checking some boxes) in your e-mail. The latter might look better at work

All good thoughts and appreciated.

 

I now wish I'd marked the specific thread that led to me starting this one. I don't even remember the question that was posed.

 

I was also tempted to not respond to anyone in this thread just to see if anyone would notice. :D

Bad manners?

Some people got the answer and move on without acknowlege in another post. But I feel these are few.

I think the majority of those who didn't post another post because the answers they got weren't what they expected. People who asked questions like which camera should I buy would have a lot of conflicting answers as well as questions which they don't know how to respond. Same thing for people who asked i am going to shoot a wedding tomorrow what setting should I use.

The ones that annoy me (mildly - I don't get apoplectic over 'em) are the 'puzzle questions'; where someone posts or describes an obscure fault, and then doesn't bother to report back if the correct solution was ever found.

 

I sometimes think some of these such posts are deliberate wind-ups to provoke head-scratching and test people's knowledge.

 

This particular one springs to mind from the Medium Format forum.

 

The poster never came back after my suggestion that the whole thing was a leg-pull. But if it wasn't, I'd be intrigued to know what could possibly cause such a fault.

Weird example. For what it's worth, I kind of wonder if something odd is happening in the film winder that's making the film re-seat as the focal plane shutter moves. But I'd have to have a 500c to play with to see how much rubbish I'm talking.

 

I suspect some solve their own problem without realising that others are still trying to do so, and some are just too embarrassed by an apparently simple answer. I'm sure I trigger TL;DR syndrome and scare some off when trying to help, too.

The most puzzling thing about that 'blad double-imaging, is how sharp the secondary image is. If it was a smeared blur, then shutter bounce could be to blame.

 

The secondary image doesn't quite ring true in another way, because it appears to be a dark image laid over the top of a much lighter background. That just doesn't happen with a double exposure, where any much lighter area swamps a darker one and renders it near-invisible.

 

I guess it'll remain a mystery.

I have to admit to posting comments sometimes and then forgetting in which topic I posted them. I usually try to go back and see if anyone agrees with me. (This is general discussions, right?)

I have to admit to posting comments sometimes and then forgetting in which topic I posted them.

 

find the menu item for "your content" and you can see where you have posted