Timeline for Should we punish and also close questions with blindingly obvious answers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2014 at 6:01 | comment | added | Reality Extractor | @FalconMomot good point, I got caught up in my own rage about people who rage about simple questions. +1 comment for you. | |
| May 13, 2014 at 7:59 | comment | added | Falcon Momot | I actually expressed the opposite view, if anything, in the question, from that which you attribute to me. Perhaps there is something to reading before you type? ;) | |
| May 13, 2014 at 4:38 | comment | added | Reality Extractor | @FalconMomot what I see in your question is the commonly found attitude in the open source community of RTFM and only ask if you put in 40 hours trying to figure it out yourself first, to me that approach makes little sense, the opportunity cost of reading but not replying to a basic question is minimal, don't want to answer it then don't answer it, no need to ragedownvote. I am not an expert, I have certain keywords filtered and answer when I can while ignoring questions which are too hard/easy. The current system works fine unless people feel like powertripping. | |
| May 13, 2014 at 0:44 | comment | added | Falcon Momot | The question is about to what extent, if at all, we should actively discourage such questions (re. the broken windows theory, and to retain the interest of professional users), and what criteria we might use. I'm not entirely in disagreement with your criteria but you could probably stand to go a bit deeper than that instead of attacking people for cleaning up. | |
| May 12, 2014 at 15:09 | history | answered | Reality Extractor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |