I think one need to give the answer to the question raised as per the understanding.

However if need be, some supporting URL may be attached for additional information.

To have a link, or several links, as response to a question is like passing on the responsibility of answering the question to someone else. One must avoid it, or do it only when it is absolutely necessary. Questions come from the researchers hoping for answers from the collective wisdom of the RG members.

Not every researcher have the capacity to give apt and concise response to answer most questions asked on rg they feel it is professional to respond to a question with a link. I have had an issue because I responded to a question asked by a graduate student an answer insteqd of a link but my lecturer who is in the thread fell out with me and till date I can not agree fully with him and with hien protest I see that this part of my world respond with URL and not answers. Its a pity.

Yes, it is right.

It should be followed, you have rightly pointed out.

Thanks

I think one need to give the answer to the question raised as per the understanding.

However if need be, some supporting URL may be attached for additional information.

I agree that one should provide an answer rather than links because we all know how to google! In some cases, it is appropriate to provide links when the answer is readily available on google or there are duplications in question on RG.

Yes, that is exactly right.

You are right.

However, sometimes, it is necessary to give links (besides the answer in one's own words and understanding).

I remember a colleague on RG once replied to my question like:

"...you should google rather than bring unnecessary questions here..." (Paraphrased).

I respectfully thanked him/her. However, it was an area that I had already studied and had literature from google and other sources already. All I wanted was an expert in the area to phrase something in their own personal understanding and that would give me alot of insight to understand the documents I had,

So sometime, it is true, all people need is a simple reply with 'one's own understanding' and it breaks the ice.

However, there are case that we can not ignore without giving links. It is also possible that someone has tried to google but using less appropriate keywords and links will help in such cases

To all who were so kind to respond to my challenging question (regarding the meaning from URL-links in our RG communication).

thank you very much for your arguments. I do not want to do with this question what often happens in such a discussion: to justify each other. Instead, we should discuss a thesis - agreeing, relativizing, or answering with a counter-thesis -

My thesis is: When we answer a question we are asked, we should first give a personal answer. If you recommend a link, you should say what is important to you in the information of this link or reflect this information yourself - in abridged form.

Let me explain why I think this is important. There are principles that all have something to do with "successful communication" and communication theory. Yes, I am annoyed when I want to talk to a colleague whose answer is to refer me to a link and not to share his own relationship and knowledge of that link with me. It is sometimes useful to refer to a link, but only at the end of the answer, which also reveals one's own interest and perhaps insufficient level of knowledge. Presenting the link immediately as the only answer is an alienation of communication.

Secondly, the link contains far too much other content, it is rarely a precise answer to the question asked, but often provides either too differentiated or too superficial information in relation to the question asked.

Thirdly, one should consider someone who asks a question in RG to be able to use Google to find the links on the Internet that are available for the keyword to which the question refers.

At the same time, my thesis is an appeal to signal a personal interest (perhaps associated with a certain low knowledge) rather than simply naming a link. Let me try it again. If a link is to be the whole answer, then this link should be recommended to the questioner as readable by a personal relationship to the link content.

Concluding thesis: Today we have the problem of having too much information rather than too little and we have to choose strictly what we prefer, a personal exchange or a link.

So long! Hein

I have found both very useful. I know of great researchers in my network that supplies very useful links. I really commend them because it takes a lot of effort, time and resources to do so.

However, I also noticed that supplying too many links sometimes not useful makes the whole thing complicated. Commenting and supplying links makes it more interesting.

I agree with you

Dear Colleagues, Chukwuebuka Egbuna, Ashvin Godghate,

your encouraging answers that make me conclude myself; it's also a confirmation of that opinion which shared Ismyl Rizvi and others (above) with the question:

Often we need both, an rating opinion and a further information (in the net), but we don't neglect the personal reference you have to the question and the recommended link. Thanks, Hein

I think that science is an evidence based phenomenon. An answer and link for further reading is in order. A link alone is not good enough

I NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTION ADDING ONLY URL.

Dear Dr. Khaoula,

We are living in a very busy time. Only a very few of us are having time to check the added links.

In the added links, the answer of the concerned questions are not written briefly in most of the time. It is very difficult and tedious to read some long article to get the comment of a single respondent.

It is a practical problem.

Thanks.

A simple question in RG shouldn't be commented by naming the URL of several links, but by a simple qualified and understandable answer

I have now asked myself whether my question, which is actually a wish or even a recommendation for behaviour, is justified. Many people who get the URL of 3 or 4 links (instead of an explanation) to a question they havd asked have the right to say: That doesn't bother me at all, I just decide whether I look at the links - or not. Nothing else matters.

Such a position is of course possible. Maybe I am a little too sensitive, and I am bothered by something that others find normal, find good, and don't mind at all. So I think: my question was just an attempt to check the opinions of those who also have this problem. Everyone will do as they see fit.

Short and brief answers that lead directly to the point, that's how questions should be answered.

Yes, Ahmed, I absolutey agree with your opinion, thanks Hein

To Arben J Salihu,

thanks for your comment. I basically agree. I have the impression that RG is not only a pure communication offer, but also sets conditions for users, which impair our communication: This includes a) that factually the same questions are asked again and again, and we have no possibility to refer to threads of the same name in recent times, b) that answers are only given in order to comply with the RG system, which requires to constantly ask any questions and give answers - and the system uses the lure "score". But those who not only say in their answers: "Many thanks for their valuable answer", but invest much longer time in an answer will realize that it is not about the score, but about a factual problem.

Starting point of this question from me was that I was annoyed to read so many links that were offered to me, although I only wanted to hear the good experience of an RG user.

This thread shows me, however, that my concern is understood and supported by a whole series of colleagues, but not by many. My original interest in improving communication is then restricted by a different feeling that says: "Let everyone do what they want, just like before!" Because even if you like RG, you should not overestimate it in its function. We can therefore disagree on everything that is being discussed here.

What I really appreciate about several colleagues with whom I am a "follower" is that they react warmly to questions and give a personal answer. And that does not depend on whether you are an expert in this question or not, but on personal attention. But when I hear as an argument: "We are all under stress and don't have time for long answers, so naming a link is a good thing" then I say to myself: "Well, do it like that with everyone else, but you have to know that I am annoyed about it. Best regards, Hein

Dear Dr. Retter,

I agree with your point of view.

In my personal opinion an answer to a question posed in this forum should ideally be like the following.

Answer = Statement of Facts + Reflection of your understanding/experience/wisdom + the personal touch + at the end if possible a relevant reference/link etc.

Mit besten Wuenschen aus Indien/With best wishes,

ARB

If it's a simple question, the personal idea or suggestions of the responder is what I believe is required; unless the URL referred to is the work of the same responder meant to butress the points. Otherwise such response/URL suggested may seem to be a borrowed idea.

When we ask a question on RG, we are asking for assistance from our respected colleagues to help us find remedy to the problem which often times, translates into projects, research and publication.

Thus, if you are offered any aid (half loaf is better than none), even a link that leads to more productive answers and/or information on the subject, then I think we must be grateful. However, scholars can be generous enough if they produce a simple stem or sentence to enlighten the researcher who posed the question, what s/he is to expect (The tenet of the information presented) after following the link. This would prove very useful to all researchers on this important academic platform. Kind regards

i suggest all the RG members that reply only those questions which falls in your domain, cut/paste or get links from different sources is immaturity at this highest level

Good viewpoint.

enlightening

Dear colleagues and friends,

my impression is that all the contributions to my question are very useful, including those that have a slightly different opinion from mine, because diversity of opinion is normal and desirable. Above all, it is a good discussion. One does not recognize a good discussion by the fact that the side is in the right and not the other side, but that our good personal relations are not affected by the differences in the objective reasoning. Because we also experience discussions in RG that the disputants also feel personally attacked and argue with personal injuries. That is not the case here at all. And the point of my initial question was basically just to remind us that it is sometimes good not to discuss information, but to discuss ourselves and our behaviour as it happens here. Because, in addition to one aspect that concerns the matter, every communication also has a relationship aspect that concerns our personal relationship with the communication partner, and this "relationship aspect" was what my question was about. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this.

With good wishes, Hein.