Re: Use of Stackoverflow for Question/Answer forum

[Ted Lemon]

On Dec 24, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Paul Morris <address@hidden> wrote:
> I wonder... Why are there so many different archives of the lilypond mailing
> list?  Would there be a way to prevent some of them from showing up in
> google search results? (e.g. by having them indicate "no index" in
> robots.txt) 

Attracting search clicks is a money-making proposition, particularly if it's 
cheap, so putting up an archive of a mailing list is an easy way to do that.   
There has to be content that will match searches in order for it to be 
worthwhile.   You see the same thing with phpBB sites--there will be a dozen 
archives of any reasonably popular site, all just clickbait.   So far 
StackOverflow seems to be policing this to the extent that it apparently 
doesn't happen with them.

> FWIW, I sometimes try a general search (DuckDuckGo), but just as often I'll
> start with the manuals (usually doing a single-page search on the index page
> of the notation manual), then I'll search either the LSR or the mailing list
> using the nabble interface ( http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/ ). 
> ...and then ask on the mailing list if I get stuck.

The manuals are great as far as they go, but they aren't comprehensive, nor are 
they systematic.   To the extent that I'm any good at typesetting manuscripts 
with Lilypond, it's a result of reading the manual, beating my head against 
some weird behavior, occasionally asking questions, and iterating.

E.g., unless I have just missed some valuable resource, there is no systematic 
document about what can appear between the braces in any of \layout, \staff, 
\score, \book, etc.   The information is in many cases _there_, but it's 
organized in such a way that it's a bit of a treasure hunt trying to find it.