[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, of course it is. But we continue to have serious technical issues with this person. I don't know if it's a second-language issue (but purportedly, he's an upper-level Harvard grad...so...???), or what, but it's like sending a message out into space, and what comes back seems utterly unrelated to what you've sent. Beyond even non-sequiturs.

Years ago, I knew a woman who was maddening. Every sentence out of her mouth was a complete and total non-sequitur to the one that came before. After a while I figured out that if you listened long enough and could keep the threads straight, she eventually circled around and completed all of the thoughts, but it made communication interesting.

I mean..here's an example. We send out instructions that tell clients to a) click the blue FILE NAMES below my sig, and download them, and b) to click a link for Dropbox, and to download the files that they see there. What did I get, today?

<...>

What? What?

Been there. Seen that. Tech support was once us. I got adept at simplifying stuff to the "Press this key" level.

For what you encountered, I'd see about having the relevant stuff online so you could simply provide a link he could open in his browser and read online.

(I'd take the assertions of high-level Harvard grad with a large sack of salt.)

Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia has value, beyond VERY simple things, like, "How many episodes are in show X?," deserves what they get.

Wikipedia has value as a starting point, not an end. (My SO commissioned a button from a calligrapher acquaintance for me blazoned "Ohhh! Shiny facts!" after watching me chase down various Wikipedia ratholes for several hours as one thing led to another.)

But the problem with Wikipedia is what you mean by authoritative. When you have a crowd sourced encyclopedia, when anyone can create and edit entries, what confidence do you have that any of it is correct and factual? Not enough...

Places like Encyclopedia Britannica have filter mechanisms called editors and fact checkers who do their best to insure what they publish is authoritative, and truth or falsehood in not a matter of majority opinion.

But the inability to communicate is just driving me ape***.

We had a similar problem with the FIRST batch of files we asked him to DL. Again, three docx and two PDFs. I just do NOT know what to do. I've used images, arrows...the last time this happened, I received a lecture from him on why "people who make instructions suck at it," basically.

See above about putting stuff online and providing URLs to it. Asking them do download and read is asking for trouble.

I suspect I should have sent him on down the road, and I want to kick myself for it.

You may still have to. Since he can't seem to follow simple instructions, or comprehend what he reads, I don't see a viable long term relationship here.

(Incidentally, out of curiosity, what's the topic of his primary source Wikipedia tome?)
______
Dennis