closed because the questioner didnt search

Question

So it seems ok for someone to answer a question to use google http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/6124/should-someone-post-an-answer-when-all-they-did-was-google-fu

But if a user does not use google the question is closed (eg)

https://serverfault.com/questions/723754/sql-server-2014-enterprise-edition-is-consuming-too-much-ram-i-need-to-limit-it

I don't disagree that its pretty simple to answer, I disagree that the close reason is (essentially) " your question is poorly worded" when what we need is an answer that says (essentially) " you lazy bug, it took you longer to type this question than for me to search for the answer, go away".

I'm ok with the premise that basic research should be done, but IMHO we should pick a consistent stance, its either ok to google for the user and post or there should be a close option telling the user to search.

Answer 1

I'm thinking that question should actually be reopened. I know, I'm as shocked as anyone! Here's what is rattling through my head (in no particularly coherent order):

• The question does, indeed, have a clear problem statement and an answer that can be expressed in no more than a few paragraphs.
• It is related to administering computer systems in a business environment, or it is a question that could reasonably asked by someone in such a situation.
• Practically every question asked here could be answered with a little Google fu. That, alone, should not be a criteria for closing a question.
• New answerers need something to cut their teeth on. This question seems like a good candidate for that.
• I was told, many moons ago, by someone far more level-headed than I, that just because I felt it was beneath my skills and experience to answer a particular question, that alone didn't make it a bad question. I don't always manage to live by that, but I try to bear it in mind when I'm waving the closehammer around wildly.
• I recall one of the founding principles of SO, at least, was to be a repository of all programming knowledge, even if a lot of it is trivial stuff. Whilst SF != SO, I like to think we're trying to build the same sort of thing, within our specific topic area.
• The major point against reopening, IMO, is our desire for more questions worthy of a professional, and that you're not much of a professional if you can't stick "SQL Server limit memory" into Google and mix-and-match the results to your situation. I refer the honourable member to my earlier point about how just about every question on SF can be answered with Google fu, and extend and revise that by saying I'd prefer to use our Google juice than to hoard it for a rainy day.

I'm not going to stomp on a closing, though. I'll leave it closed, and if others find my arguments persuasive and the question gets reopened, so be it.

Answer 2

Ignoring the fact that RAM usage is good in database servers, this one failed the "no research effort" sniff test for me. I am not a Windows guy, but was able to find a straightforward answer to the OP's question, direct from Microsoft Documentation, with a single Google Search.

Server Fault should not be a replacement for reading documentation. If a user won't at least consult the freely-available documentation on a simple issue like this, then frankly they don't deserve the free assistance available here. Don't take that as mean-spirited, I don't intend it as such. My position on this is comes from the viewpoint that it's far better to encourage people to find answers on their own than to spoon-feed them one-off answers on demand.

Answer 3

Should this question be reopened?
Noooooooo

It's not only basic knowledge for most who use MSSQL.
Which doesn't actually matter all that much.

But primarily!
It is a clear duplicate.
There are so many posts on serverfault / dba about the memory usage of SQL Server, I don't see why it's not just closed as a duplicate.
It would answer the OP's question quite quickly if it was just closed as a duplicate, serve as a pointer to the tremendous amount of answers about SQL Server memory, and push the point please do your own research more than simply closing it does. (not taking into account comments who are generally regarded as non-existent in the long run)

When a question comes up that is clearly common knowledge, chances are you'll find a post on ServerFault about it. For any other questions a well written ServerFault answer won't harm anyone if one does not already exist.