Timeline for Should we punish and also close questions with blindingly obvious answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2014 at 11:39 | comment | added | MichelZ | @MarkHenderson Good point indeed. So I should start asking questions like "What is a NIC?" "What is a processor"? "Why do I need a network?" All very basic things... Do we really want to litter SF with stuff like that? | |
| May 6, 2014 at 21:36 | comment | added | Grant | @markhenderson good point. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 21:25 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @Grant - I know we've had this discussion before but I'm too tired right now to look for it. Just because something is easily googlable is not a reason to close it. We would prefer that when users google for easy things, they end up here, rather than on some random unverifiable blog. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | Grant | @markhenderson I find myself using that close reason a lot...I interpret it as a slightly nicer way of saying "you didn't even TRY to google this, did you?" | |
| May 6, 2014 at 16:25 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @Iain I don't like that close reason. I never have. I don't like it, because I think it is mis-used as an excuse for people to close things that they don't like without really having to justify why. There are a handful of times I've thought it's appropriate, but that's all. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 13:48 | comment | added | Andrew | Pick a topic that's in your area of expertise, think of the simplest possible question, and decide whether you'd close it as "you haven't researched this, go ask Google / read some books". | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:42 | comment | added | user9517 | What then is (your interpretation of) the purpose of the minimal understanding close reason ? | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:40 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | Additionally, just because it's a bad question, doesn't mean that it has a bad answer | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:32 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | That doesn't change the fact that you don't close a question just because you think it's too simple | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:28 | comment | added | user9517 | We have lots of heads on pikes, they don't stop people throwing themselves at the walls. Similarly we have lots of (canonical) questions that just never get read because people don't do their own research or read. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:13 | comment | added | Mark Henderson Mod | @MichelZ - and Server Fault could have had a canonical answer to supplement it, but now it doesn't. Now it has the equivalent of a head on a pike at the town entrance. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 9:00 | comment | added | user9517 | If someone were bothered to look we probably do have a question that outlines the fundamentals of DHCP already. However, as is too often he case few people who ask questions bother to research either on the wider internet or on SF.The rest is history and a river of shit. | |
| May 6, 2014 at 8:56 | comment | added | MichelZ | I might not have known it, but Wikipedia (minimal research effort) would tell me this in no time | |
| May 6, 2014 at 8:47 | history | answered | Mark HendersonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |