In general, it is incredibly hard to sense what another person knows based solely on a single post, which is usually all the context we get when responding to help topics. It's
even harder to sense what they
don't know, and attempts to figure out either of these frequently tend to be taken the wrong way. Having watched over this community for years now, this is something I see happening again and again - assumptions or inquiries regarding what someone knows or doesn't know, or what they've done or haven't done, are a hit or miss type of situation with the potential to cause unnecessary tension due to miscommunications or misunderstandings. :/ It's also helpful to keep in mind that while
you know what you know and don't know, or what you struggle with, those who respond to you will not know unless you tell them. Chances are they'll take it into consideration once they know it, but they can't really do so beforehand.
Often, there's an inherently positive intent behind that one reply among the masses that just sounds like some grumpy professor who's having a bad day having a go at one of his students for asking what he deems to be a simple or obvious question he expects the student to know the answer to. Quite frequently, it's the subtle nuances in such replies that can make the difference between appearing rude and appearing helpful.
Examples:
"Have you read the manual? This is demonstrated quite clearly in the example section of function XYZ."
"This is demonstrated quite clearly in the manual's example section of function XYZ."
"The example section of function XYZ demonstrates how to do this. Have you seen it already?"
The worst way I could possibly interpret those as is:
"I don't think you read the manual. Are you stupid? This page clearly explains it, why didn't you read it?!?"
"Have you read manual page XYZ already? It explains what you're looking for and I think you'll understand it if you look at it."
"Here's where to find the solution to your question. Is this sufficient, or should I explain it more?"
Omission of ambiguous key phrases or needlessly eloquent or formal wording can go a long way to make something appear at least neutral rather than hostile. Additional hints of intent, which is otherwise difficult to guess based on an inherently monotonous block of text that can be read in various ways based solely on the reader's interpretation and imagination, can help to establish that you want to help and not mock the user who's asking the question.
Another set of examples:
"This is an extremely rudimentary question you would know the answer to if you had read the manual page of function XYZ."
"This is a very simple question. The manual page of function XYZ explains it."
"This is pretty basic stuff. Check the manual page of function XYZ for an explanation."
Again, my worst possible interpretations:
"This is extremely simple and you're stupid for not understanding or knowing it."
"This question is very simple. Reading manual page XYZ will probably help you understand it."
"Check out this resource to learn how this works. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure you'll understand it and can move past this problem soon."
Though the content is the same each time (problem is simple - read this resource to understand it), the wording makes the difference here.
One part of my day job can essentially be summarized as "remote IT support". We were trained to keep all correspondence between us and our clients as clinical as possible to appear professional in order to improve the company's image as a professional business. Things like showing emotions or - dare I mention them - emojis are greatly discouraged. However, I personally have found this to be ineffective in the long run. I often have to deal with frustrated clients who are under strict deadlines or have been failing to resolve something on their own for hours or even days, so the atmosphere often starts out tense and heavy from the get-go. Rubbing people who are already feeling down the wrong way tends to send them off on a tangent because they feel wronged by whom they expected to be the solution to their problem, not an
additional problem, on top of already feeling bad due to having the problem in the first place.
Forum members are much like these clients. Usually, they've been trying to fix stuff on their own for a while, got frustrated because they couldn't and resorted to asking the community. This is why I tend to bring emotions into many of my replies (often even a bit more than necessary) - in an attempt to convey the intent better. It's much harder to feel offended by something that sounds friendly than by something that sounds neutral, and it's hard to teach something to an angry or distraught student.
It's also easier to
avoid conflicts than to
resolve them, so if I can avoid people getting enraged because they don't like my wording, etiquette be damned, I'll throw in an emoji and resist using advanced vocabulary at the risk of somehow appearing less knowledgeable or damaging the company's reputation, which our codex wants to make me believe will definitely be the outcome. My primary intention during an initial response to help requests is not necessarily (only) to get started on resolving the problem, but to establish that I am someone who can be approached for help and will
gladly do so -
not someone high and authoritative who knows better than you and will look down on you for not knowing or understanding what they deem to be simple or obvious. Better for the company's image in the long run, too, if you ask me.
To demonstrate... take the two example scenarios above and just add an emoji.
"The example section of function XYZ demonstrates how to do this. Have you seen it already?
"
"This is pretty basic stuff. Check the manual page of function XYZ for an explanation.
"
We're taught that this makes us appear less professional... but just try to find ANY trace of hostility in these. I dare you to find a reason to get mad at me for telling you either of these two.
This is precisely what makes the difference between a neutral reply that can be interpreted in multiple ways and a reply that is clearly intended to be a not so subtle hint about where you can (probably) find the solution on your own - and if it's not sufficient, you can reasonably expect that the person who sent you there is approachable enough to explain it more thoroughly when prompted. Explicitly stating the latter goes the additional step and ensures there's absolutely no room for interpretation:
"The example section of function XYZ demonstrates how to do this. Have you seen it already?
If you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask!"
"This is pretty basic stuff. Check the manual page of function XYZ for an explanation.
If you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask!"
The question "Have you read the manual?" can be interpreted in MANY different ways... but every time I ask this question, the intent is 100% either to find out whether the user in question has already read specific parts of the manual and has therefore already either exhausted this option or is at least on the same page as me, or to throw a hint where the solution can be found so the user can find and figure it out on their own (and learn from it rather than having the answer handed to them). In verbal conversation, this intent is usually easier to convey. Making the transition from what
would sound perfectly acceptable if tone and intent were more apparent (as they would be in verbal conversation) to explicitly declaring each of these was difficult for me at the start, too, but it's something I eventually got used to. It's pretty much second nature to me by now (to the point where I tend to over-do it), but I can relate very well to anyone who fell into this pitfall already.
I sort of understand both sides here. I've been on both. While a condescending-sounding reply is certainly not the most pleasant thing to receive, someone still took time out of their day to try to teach me something I don't know, or at least give me a push in the right direction, and I'm grateful to them for that. Communication is
not easy on either side. In fact, on-point communication is something I'm naturally incapable of according to the definition of one of my medical conditions... so if even
I can learn it, I have strong reasons to believe that anyone can!
... case in point, this even sort of works on the two examples I intentionally tried to phrase in the rudest way possible.
"Have you read the manual? This is demonstrated quite clearly in the example section of function XYZ.
If you're still unsure afterwards, let us know what you're having difficulties understanding and we'll try to explain in greater detail."
"This is an extremely rudimentary question you would know the answer to if you had read the manual page of function XYZ.
If you're still unsure afterwards, let us know what you're having difficulties understanding and we'll try to explain in greater detail."