Code only answers

Question

I recently had 2 answers downvoted by a person and he argued that they were "code only" and they require explanations. Here are my 2 cents on this:

There are questions where code-only answers should be ok. The question I am talking about in here was something like "How do I make this config work" so I posted the working version of OPs question, with only a few characters modified.

This website is for professionals and the users are required to have a good understanding of what they are asking. Isn't the same valid for answers? Whoever reads them and needs them, they should have a good understanding of what is being "explained". If you cannot understand a flag changed in a rewrite rule, are you a professional? Is SF interested in having too many users that are at THAT level?

Answer 1

Remember, the answer you provide today is not just for the OP. It is for everyone else who happens to land on it via some search engine link or other method in the future.

Adding an explanation like you did here improves the answer considerably and makes it more useful to the OP and anyone else who might subsequently find it. It explains what caused the problem, this will hopefully lead to a better understanding than 'here's a fix'.

We should be seeking to educate people rather than feeding them and better yet we should seek to teach people to educate themselves.

This website is for professionals and the users are required to have a good understanding of what they are asking.

We won't go there, this is demonstrably (and unfortunately) not true.