I will endeavour to ensure this reply has nothing to do with your question and will concentrate on my pet peeves. 🙂
It seems that a lot of people assume that the forum users are all telepathic and therefore do not need to be given any details of their problem. They are too lazy to use google or read a book, they title the thread “newbie needs help” to ensure the subject can never be found again, start the thread with “please be gentle” and ask a trivial question like “I have just bought an (un-named) lathe which I (am standing next to but) want you to tell me the pitch of the windy grooved thing at the front”. After people have put a lot of effort into helping them they declare they know all that as they were a ‘toolmaker’ for fifty years.

It’s even worse on facebook.

Personally I don’t mind all the various responses to my questions, I am more than happy to learn from others and don’t mind admitting that I may be wrong occasionally. 😂 Equally, I am intelligent enough to filter through the nonsense.

The only thing that annoys me a little is when you make it clear that a certain option isn’t viable but some people will argue that it is, regardless, just to play devil’s advocate.

I think some of the alleged offences actually hide diffidence and a reluctance to ask what might be thought a Very Silly Question by the Sages who have never had to make a part twice or extract a broken tap.

Particularly, the “I have decided C is best [of A, B, C]… what do you think?”, really means, “I think C might work for me but I am not sure”. The questioner really wants the comfort of confirmation or an explanation of why Option B would be better.

Really, the respondent who rejects such pleas has not considered more than the face value of the words.

I do agree some questions may be trivial or show little thought or effort. However, it’s not a text-automaton but a real person asking, and some may genuinely be nervous about ruining the newly-acquired lathe or box of castings. Equally, who may also be nervous about asking, afraid of seeming an ignorami among the experts.

It would work the other way of course: the questioner seemingly diffident about Options A, B or C would be very rude to cling to C after a consenus of a few other users carefully explains why B would be best choice.

If I have to ask such a question I try to give the background: what I am attempting, etc; and offer what I think might be solutions; not what I say is the solution. It can elicit a range of options but at least I can go with the one agreed as perhaps the best, and is also the most feasible for me.

For example, if I was seeking advice on change-wheels of odd tooth-counts, “3D print them” would not help me, though it might help other readers. While other answers revealing neat gear combinations I’d missed, or suggesting “Blogg’s Cogs?” – a supplier perhaps new to me – open avenues I can explore further.

In fact I have occasionally found nuggets very helpful to me, among replies to other people’s queries. Yet also sometimes suggested, as gently as I can, that it would help the enquirer to name the lathe, or the model design, etc. to be more certain of answers from people with the specific knowledge.

We must of course allow for genuine ignorance: for example someone who has inherited a model locomotive and wants to run it, but does not know an injector from an ejector, is going to need a lot of sensitive help. While the tyro with his nice shiny new lathe is likely to be very confused by all the tooling debates here because collectively the conversation does not offer single, simple choices and worse, often little or no clue as to which is better than or as good as what, for what, when, and crucially for understanding anything, why….

Now, I know enough to know my respondents expect a fair amount of technical detail, but I don’t always get that quite right. It is not always easy to see what is really needed, not because I think everyone here is telepathic but rather that I am not, so do not always know how the reader might see it. We share the same engineering knowledge, but the point then is how we explain the problem, and how the reader understands our prose.

I think I ran into this with my “Metal’s Shrunk” question, because some of the answers puzzled me by not matching what I described. Then I realised I’d probably not described it sufficiently unambiguously.

The problem of communication on the cruise-ship is perhaps a bit extreme because there, the unfortunate receptionist with no technical knowledge and limited maritime experience is often trying to relay problems described by passengers with even less, have paid a lot of money for the cruise, and expect everything to be perfect. As they are, presumably.

Here, we may be expecting not perfection of things – we know too much engineering for that – but perfection of people… and Mother Nature is not always better than she should be at imbuing we fallible humans with perfection.

….

Oh, and I had to read the bit about “growing tentacles” twice. Though these days….   🙂

Some times the questioner does not know enough to pose the question correctly. Then confusion sets in because the replies answer the question that they thought was being asked.

One example was a complaint about poor surface finish.

After replies explaining how to grind a tool properly, feeds, depths of cut etc, the OP then confessed to ignorance of the need for the tool to be on centre height. Once that had been done, the problem was solved.

But often the original question does not contain sufficient information for anyone to provide a correct answer, unless they have been lucky in their guess as to the problem.

Often, now, there seems to be reluctance to buy and read a book on basic operation. These show and name the basic features of a machine, so that a question on “gears” can distinguish between back gear and changewheels, avoiding confusion for all concerned.

To some, calculating the diameter of a pulley to reduce the speed from that of the motor, will be enough of an intellectual stretch for someone without basic engineering knowledge. Once that technique has been grasped, then, it might be time to mention the need for a belt of the correct section to suit the pulley.

And, as already said, the cognoscenti need to avoid introducing detail that a total beginner does not need.

If the question is about a Leadscrew, the newbie will have enough problem learning about pitch, or tpi. Telling about the difference between Acme or Trapezoidal threads will merely introduce needless confusion. It will be enough to learn how far the saddle will move for one turn of the Leadscrew, without knowing the details of the thread form.

Then they will need to learn how to work out the geartrain to produce the desired result

A knowledge of DPs, or Modules, or Pressure Angles is not required at that stage.

As the radio Amateurs say “KISS” (Keep It Simple Stupid), and don’t assume more knowledge than is actually there.  Better to insult someone’s intelligence than lead them into the slough of despond through unnecessary complication.

The other side of the coin, is the newcomer who “Knows” better than someone with years of experience.

They are liable to be beyond help, until they learn that they don’t know.

(The frustration of dealing with someone who believes that because “It has thread on it” it can be connected to anything else carrying a thread, is enormous). I’ve experienced this, and you have to go into detail to explain how Metric threads do not mate properly with BSP!

Howard

I quite like to see alternative suggestions that may not align exactly with the question/problem of the OP, because many useful things are learned that way.

What I don’t like is when people pitch-in with ‘clever’ comments that patently add no value or even serve to confuse, just so that they can have some sort of input.

I wish people would not dive in without reading the whole thread, including the original post. Not that I am not guilty.

I agree very much about the danger for the OP not recognising the derailment, as you describe.

He or she may be misled into thinking the question has opened a huge tin of Lumbricidae far beyond present expertise, rather than something simple to put right – such as the lathe-tool height example given by Howard.

Perhaps for a beginner’s question the most tactful approach might be a simple, brief step-list but posed as a return question.

Something like this, using that poor-finish example:

Have you ensured:

1 Tool sharp and of the appropriate shape?

2 Set so the cutting edge is on centre-height?

3 The material can be machined easily? (Some are not…)

4 It is not protruding too far from the chuck or collet, without adequate support?

5 Lathe set to appropriate speed and feed?

 

That may elicit the answer directly- the OP goes away, finds which one of those he has missed, puts it right and ends up happy; or, identifies the fault from that list but now needs further, specific help, or has done all that but still not happy so we need now dig deeper to find what is really going wrong.

The moral is not to blind the unfortunate novice with science even if as a by-conversation about the most arcane subleties, or by suggesting skills not relevant to the specific question and questioner at that time.

On 9 November 2025 at 00:04 Nigel Graham 2 Said:

I agree very much about the danger for the OP not recognising the derailment, as you describe.

He or she may be misled into thinking the question has opened a huge tin of Lumbricidae far beyond present expertise, rather than something simple to put right – such as the lathe-tool height example given by Howard.

…The moral is not to blind the unfortunate novice with science even if as a by-conversation about the most arcane subleties, or by suggesting skills not relevant to the specific question and questioner at that time.

 

A web-forum isn’t the ideal platform, one fault being it’s hard to tell if correspondents are experts or beginners, making it unlikely that the topic will be discussed at the right level:

• beginner asks a simple question in hope of a simple answer gets a full in-depth discussion.  Frustrated: ‘why don’t these idiots just tell me what I want to know‘.
• expert needing assistance from another expert asks a deep question in hope of getting advanced advice.  Instead, he’s showered in patronising ‘up jumped baby bunny’ suggestions from people trying to help, but have missed the point. Also frustrating: ‘why are these idiots wasting my time with bleeding obvious suggestions’  
• Individuals expert in one field are beginners in others – and vice versa.  Frustration: ‘why haven’t these idiots tuned into my needs on this subject’

Consider the question ‘does 1+1=2?’.

• Most of us ‘know’ the answer is yes.  Taught it at school, confirmed by practical experience.  No need to worry, and anyone who asks must be mad or stupid.   Naive: we don’t know, and get away with it because we live simple lives, where the real answer is irrelevant.
• Principia Mathematica sets out to prove step-by-step that mathematics is formally correct – assumptions forbidden! Famously takes nearly 400 pages to get to 1+1=2, and doesn’t show it’s true until Volume 2.   On the way the book covers a lot of other related concepts and proofs.   Necessary because science and technology depend on maths as tool, and the tool has to work.  Engineers rely on advanced mathematics, whilst craftsmen and artisans only need basic skills.  This hobby straddles the boundary, leading to jock vs nurd arguments.  (I’m a nurd)

Many examples in engineering of the 1+1 conundrum: is the topic a beginner Q&A or not.  This topic is an example:  I suspect Vic started a light-hearted conversation, only to discover the subject has hidden depths.    No matter I think: he’s started an interesting conversation, even if it’s not what he expected.

Model Engineering being broad-church doesn’t help.  Mainly focussed on metalwork, but the hobby covers all things ‘making’ and no-one knows it all.  Expert machinists are often amazingly ignorant of other engineering disciplines, and vice versa.

The same person can be relevant and well-informed and a complete duffer.  Naturally, being human, saddled with giant egos,  we air-brush our mistakes out.   I try hard not to take offence when others misjudge me, and hope they take my mistakes in good part too.  Nothing personal: it’s a failure of communication, that wouldn’t occur face to face.  Is honesty the best policy?  Emphatically yes in engineering – errors of fact and logic must be pointed out.  Hard to do because people don’t like being corrected; emotion gets in the way.

On the subject of ego do not take experience for granted.  Whilst relevant experience is excellent, out-of-date experience is a menace.

We should all strive to write clear questions that set the context and provide the necessary detail.  And strive to write clear answers to the question.  Both skilled work, and we’re handicapped by the media.  As I have considerable respect for members, I’m not inclined to dumb down because doing so reduces value.  Not everyone is happy with that:  TL;DR!

Good news: this forum is better than most!   You have to accept friends get stuff wrong sometimes.   We live in an imperfect world.

Dave

Hi

Original Question – ( why you get so many unhelpful answers?)- I dont know.  If I ask a question I try to treat all information as useful (Maybe not for my question atm)

Nothing to do with the Original Question BUT

It would be nice if the original Questioner posted back with the outcome.

George

I like Richard Simpsons comment re training the trainer and using the “wire a plug” example.

Many years ago I was working in a training school and usually gave a 3 day “introduction to Computers” course to new starters many of who had degrees (which I certainly did not).

The fun came when I was asked to give the course to foreign students (I cannot remember now but they were either Iraqi or Saudi).  I was asked to spread the course from 3 days to 3 weeks as they had only just come from an English course at Berlios in Birmingham.  I would use a common computing term and find it was not understood, find a simple explanation and use that, only to find other words that were misunderstood.  I ended up with what looked like an inverted Xmas tree, one word at the bottom and increasing words on each layer until the phrase/concept was understood.  Sometimes I even thought that the three weeks was an optimistic extension and it should have been nearer three months.

Colin