Or people who, when given documentation, insist on asking a series of questions which are all directly answered if you bother reading the clear, concise documentation at all.
Simple obvious questions can be natterings about the "known unknowns". 1) Where do I order a beer? 2) Do they serve food? 3) Which tram do I take to get there? Progressively these three questions tell us more about the querant's location or context. But this can be quite unconscious. What about asking for summation: You've asked about beer, food and tram info, can you sum up for me what would make you happy? (Really want uncle Owen's fish and chips. Want a companion to eat with...)
Simple obvious questions can also be testing for "true facts" as opposed to "documented facts", although I would expect that behavior to subside with increasing acquaintance.
The worst I’ve seen so far: people posting trackbacks, no comments or anything, (the sort of lack of effort that would get flagged even on stack overflow), in a massive slack channel asking for help.
I don’t get it.
If it's a concept, an event, or something more broad then I'll just ask because I find I often get more context from individual conversations than from consulting the hive mind. It can often open up avenues for conversation and learning that would have not otherwise happened.
I do the same for in-person in conversation. If I don't know what something is, I'm not going to whip out my phone and look it up, I just ask "what does that word mean?" or "toilet paper...what's that?"
Now I think of it as a different style of knowledge seeking. In life, some people get answers themselves via physical artifacts and other people get answers by talking to more knowledgeable people. One involves more socialization than the other.
I think both styles are valid and have different pros and cons. I find it less annoying when I think about those interactions like this.