Timeline for Server Fault needs professional-quality questions, not just questions from professionals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Mar 17, 2017 at 10:13 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.serverfault.com/ with https://meta.serverfault.com/
|
|
| Nov 23, 2014 at 21:55 | comment | added | Crippledsmurf | That's fair enough, documented effort should always be a requirement. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 21:51 | comment | added | MadHatter | @Crippledsmurf: I don't get to be authoritative on this matter, but if you want it, my take is: yes. Anyone, regardless of mindset and tools, is welcome to ask questions here provided that they have done their basic research, and tried to answer their own question first. If you trundle by with a question at almost any level, that shows you've thought about it, and tried to skill up, I'll help if I can. If your question makes it clear that we're your very first stop for learning about what you're trying to do, I reach for my close button really quickly. | |
| Nov 23, 2014 at 11:51 | comment | added | Crippledsmurf | As someone not new to SE (SO and SU user) I've avoided asking questions on SF, even when they might have been on-topic because I am not a paid, professional sysadmin. Recently for class, I needed to setup a DSC Pull server as part of an automated Moodle deployment, I ran into some odd permissions issue, I did consider asking here, but thought better of it. As an outsider to this place, it's really hard to know whether someone in my situation, someone not strictly in the profession, but with a professional mindset and using "professional tools" is welcome to ask questions here. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 23:49 | comment | added | Shog9 | FWIW, @Jon: Michael & I discussed that question a bit after he raised it in chat - while there's a plausible interpretation of it, it's far from clear that's what the author is actually asking. If someone wanted to answer it, I would encourage them to re-write the question for clarity; failing that, closing as Unclear is most likely to lead to the necessary improvements. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | Michael Hampton Mod | @JonEricson The "not professional" close reason is intended to apply to the subject matter, not the person. I can see how it could be misinterpreted in that way, though. It was very difficult to write; we ran into the length limit while composing it. I'd be happy with a clearer version of it. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:18 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @JonEricson I never said it was bad. I'm not crazy about it as there's no problem, or perhaps it's an XY-Problem, but I wouldn't VTC. There's the issue of presentation/copy-edit... but the OP (hopefully) doesn't speak English as a first language, it's to be expected in a global community. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:15 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod |
Re: the current discussion, this is addressed in the paragraph that starts with This isn’t going to directly address the volume of low quality questions that we’re currently dealing with. Trying to further make the point that there are currently bad questions is not necessary, because there isn't disagreement about that. If you're frustrated to the breaking point by the bad questions, why is the solution to wade further into the problem?
|
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:10 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | @JonEricson "Does TOR share IPs with other users" is "too broad"??? It's pretty clear what's being asked, and not opinion based either... | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:08 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @JonEricson Having said that, if you would like to be the one to explain to all the windoe-lickers why their question is just horrible, feel free, and even encouraged. Start with this recent question, rinse and repeat a few dozen times a day, and let us know how long before you burn out/want to kill all the new users/commit suicide/give up. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:07 | comment | added | Chris S Mod | Hopeless isn't the only one either... | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:06 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @JonEricson Well, to be blunt about it, I don't have to explain to any user, ever why their question sucks. And as I can tell you from experience, it just causes them to get hostile and start flaming in the comments, flags get thrown, the mods message me to be nicer, and I get pissed off. So that would be why I'm not going to bother telling some random drive-by question asker why his question sucks. It's just wasted effort that results in me being pissed off. Been down that road before, and I learn from my experiences. ... | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:03 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | You don't have to explain to the OP why their question sucks if you pick "too broad", "unclear what you're asking" or "primarily opinion-based". Fewer clicks even. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 19:01 | comment | added | HopelessN00b | @JonEricson I'm all for having a close reason that says "your question is bad and you should feel bad," but for whatever reason, that idea never gained the approval of SE. So, we use the tools we have at our disposal. (And I can tell you from experience that using the custom close reason to say "this question should be closed because it is just awful" only causes drama.) In any event, expecting community members to take more time to explain why a question sucks than the OP put into asking it is doomed to failure. Not gonna happen. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:56 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | But why does the question suck? To an outsider it sounds like the reason it sucks is because the people on this site are elitist dicks. (Your profession is already saddled with an unfair negative stereotype. Why do you want to perpetuate it?) Editing out "at home" hardly makes a question better. All it does it make the question fit the arbitrary rules of the site. Making a question better involves things like retitling, retagging, adding detail and removing fluff. The "not professional" reason tells people not to bother with those things because they just aren't allowed to ask at all. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:36 | comment | added | HopelessN00b |
@JonEricson the professional close-reason is used as a supplementary close reason most of the time. There isn't really a clear "your question sucks" close reason, but the professional capacity close reason is fairly close, especially if you read the meta thread on what "professional capacity" means in these parts.
|
|
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:31 | comment | added | Jon Ericson Staff | The "not professional" reason is the most commonly cited close reason among currently pending flags. The second most common is the "minimal understanding" reason. I can't think of any custom close reason on the network that focuses to that degree on the person asking rather than the content of the question. You've got a participation problem, so that seems counter-productive. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:31 | comment | added | Shane Madden StaffMod | Your premise is that bad questions from the google drive-bys drove people away, but the decline in regular posters began long before the jump in traffic, and again, the jump in traffic didn't cause any jump in question volume, so that doesn't add up. Yes, I absolutely agree that some regulars have frustrated to the point of giving up on the community by poor quality questions, but I believe that our bigger problem is that we're not bringing in fresh blood. | |
| Nov 21, 2014 at 18:06 | history | answered | HopelessN00b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |