As title said.. Just what is too broad?? I did ask a few question, and I think I am specific enough. Such this question: Migrating LDAP user and password to SAMBA4 AD

Where is the "too broad" applies? I really think it specific enough, as there is only one line of command line, or may be a page noting how to transfer passwords, or as one other user pointed out, there no tool for this.

Or like the other one, I was asking about feature list of an IMAP server, that I can't find anywhere in their site. I know most server complies with IMAP4, but I was looking for specific support, such as this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1355082/is-html-5-supported-by-all-the-main-browsers but instead of HTML5, I was looking for IMAP support.

That too marked as too broad, while https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1355082/is-html-5-supported-by-all-the-main-browsers thread is not.

So, what the hell is too broad description?? What question is considered too broad?

  • 7
    I have to say that for someone who is trying to get people on our side and to reopen your question, that your tone and language is a little erm confrontational.
    – user9517
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 14:30
  • Yes. since someone been busy scanning all my threads and voting them down. LOL. Anyway, question answered. I don't care if you close them down now.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 14:32
  • 2
    Word of advice: remember that this is a free community where you'd get answers to questions that you would end up paying a consultant to answer otherwise. Remember also that not everyone's perfect and may not have the same state of mind when reading your question and voting to close it. If others come across it and see no merit for the close reason, they can nominate it to be opened again.
    – Nathan C
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 18:52
  • yes.. that, they have.. but that behaviour of voting something they don't understand discourages the real experts to come and help, because the question is "closed" or "on hold". People who don't understand should left alone a question they don't understand.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 2:05
  • 3
    Internet, arguing, etc. I think this has run its course.
    – Andrew B
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 5:59

3 Answers 3


I think what's happened here is that the key point of the closing is:

good answers would be too long for this format

You may not have realised it at the time, but you've probably asked something that you could write a book on. Server Fault isn't really the best place for disseminating that much information.

  • 1
    I don't understand? What makes it too long for transfering user list and password? As far as I know, adding user and password in samba4 is a short as one liner: samba-tool user add username password and grabbing ldap user list is as short as another one liner ldapsearch command. Piping a reader and a writer should be another one liner, provided that username and password are readable. So, at most, the answer for my question should be a one liner, or 2 lines. Even if you should install a tool, it would only be additional yum or apt-get command, or git clone command, which is another 1 line.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 6:27
  • 3
    I don't know; but 5 people on the site thought it was too broad, so that's what happens. I don't pretend to know anything about the subject in question - what I did do was read the text that was presented in the close notice and inferred from that. Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 8:45
  • Well.. they don't know what they voted there. Gentlemen below and the one answered me there surely knows the answer pretty well.. You should warn people that voted down questions they have no knowledge about running loose
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 12:58

The question you linked to is on stackoverflow. We are all part of the same network, but each site has very different rules about what kind of questions are allowed. So comparing what is allowed there isn't a valid comparison.

Migrating data from LDAP is complex enough that books are written on it. And you included next to no detail about what you had done or tried so far. I would have voted to close it too.

  • As I stated there, and IN BIG TITLE and in BODY, I only need to transfer user and password. I didn't ask you to transfer my address book entries, I didn't ask you how to add schemas, I didn't ask you how to encrypt NTPassword entries, and I definitely remember didn't ask any question about encrypting in SHA and NT. Why do you want to answer anything that I didn't even ask in the first place? I only ask to transfer credential. Are you even read? As for what I've done, that would be "too broad" to answer here. You really want me to write a book of what I've done past 2 weeks? Ironic
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 13:05
  • 8
    You seem really mad at the free advice we offer here. I will send you a cheque for a full refund.
    – Grant
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 13:10
  • Yes.. I am mad.. And you offer no advice. People bully other people only because they don't know the answer or want to show off here by answering everything that they don't need to answer. You can rip off your cheque.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 13:21
  • 6
    @Rudy Advice or not, it's a fair observation. Grant was not being rude. You are.
    – Andrew B
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 15:31
  • Yes I am. People who bash other people because they don't understand something. If you know nothing about some subject, STAY AWAY. Don't vote close only because you don't know anything about what's being asked.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 16:11
  • 6
    We may not all be LDAP experts but many of us are experts at spotting poor questions. And quite frankly the attitude you are projecting is not a great way to encourage the ones who are LDAP experts to help.
    – Grant
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 16:55
  • I don't think you EVER get it, do you?? The LDAP Experts KNOWS the answer, and knows that the answer is pretty straightforward and pretty quick. It is those non-expert attitude that discourage the real experts to come and help, but voting a legit question as non legit, because they don't know anything about it. People bash other people question because they are not the expert and can't understand the question? WTF is this?? My attitude is towards THOSE WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE QUESTION BUT ACTS LIKE THEY KNOW IT ALL. Like you. Anyway, it is answered, and reopened.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 1:55
  • If you still can't read or understand the question, the title alone without reading the message body, already suggest that I need to copy only uid, cn, sn, userPassword, sambaNTPassword and sambaLMPassword attributes part out of hundreds of other attributes and schemas to Samba AD. LDAP Experts should know what I mean. Non LDAP Experts may go to hell with that explanation
    – prd
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 1:59
  • 4
    @Rudy You are leaving just as bad of an impression (if not worse) as you're accusing others of, just for different reasons. All this sort of vitriol does is alienate those who might have otherwise agreed with you on some of these points. It certainly doesn't predispose anyone who is good with LDAP (hi) toward helping you in the future.
    – Andrew B
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 2:26
  • No. But there are lots of those same kind of questions that are treated this way out there. Do you open on hold questions within your expertise? That what should be legit questions will never get answered because those who don't understand a thing about that question voted as non legit. And those who understands the questions won't answer because they don't open those questions.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 13, 2014 at 3:01

I don't think that it should in fact have been closed as such, in spite of the fact that you are getting rather close to asking for someone to write the code or give a tool recommendation, both of which we don't do.

Of course, it also happens that the thing you want to do is not possible to accomplish as you stated (the systems are totally different in many ways, credential storage being one; LDAP is a very broad specification and not all implementations are equivalent). That's not a reason for closure, but rather for answers stating that (and why) it can't be done like that.

Accordingly, I've nominated it for reopening.

  • Yes, and as I have stated there, that they are resides at ou=People,dc=company,dc=com. I know how to read and scan LDAP tree, and I've transferred all other information from LDAP to Samba4, with exception being user/password list. Well, tried, transfer was successful, but passwords didn't work. And yes, if it can't be done, people should say so rather than saying "too broad". and "can't be done" only consists of 13 characters, and really don't understand, what's too broad for 13 characters. Thank you for you nominate it for reopening.
    – prd
    Commented Jun 12, 2014 at 6:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .