Timeline for Should Stack Exchange in general care about “effort” spent before asking a question?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 20, 2013 at 22:23 | comment | added | Chains | You're the one to decide if you'll spend time on it. If you think it's a waste of your time, then don't spend time on it. Easy as that. Other people who decide to spend time on it might not feel the same way that you do...which makes 'respect' something that can't quite be defined in objective terms. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 18:02 | comment | added | Travis J | I think that users appreciate it when the problem has been reduced as much as possible so that they do not have to excessively troubleshoot in order to solve the main problem. i.e.: here is my whole assignment vs I am having some issue with this one explicit aspect of my assignment. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 18:01 | comment | added | Travis J | I like your answer. However, I think that one of the main differences in your two example versions (which do acutely described two sides of the effort coin) that is not addressed is the minimization of the problem space. Although it is implied in your versions, it is not explicit that one version shows the entire problem space, whereas the other version shows the reduced problem space. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 17:07 | comment | added | gen_Eric | @Gilles: Chances are if you just "dump [your] problem on [us]", it's not a "good question". | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:53 | comment | added | user102937 | @Gilles: Of course. That's why close reasons have evolved that describe, not lack of effort or lack of respect, but the mechanical flaws that typically surround those things. They are, none the less, still very good at identifying lazy questions. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:52 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @TheGrinch I care whether the question improves the sum-total of knowledge. I usually don't know whether the asker is trying to get their work done for free, and that's irrelevant to determine the fate of a question. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:49 | comment | added | user102937 | @Gilles Well, respect is not something that you can craft into a close reason, but it does eloquently describe the problem. It's what lack of effort resolves to. It's the difference between someone trying to make the world better by improving the sum-total of knowledge, and someone just trying to get their work done for free. Are you a professional collaborating with other professionals in your field, or are you just a help vampire? | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:48 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Respect has the same flaw as effort as a close reason, and indeed it isn't as different as you make it to be. No, “minimal understanding” is not about respect, and if it was it would be a bad close reason. If I dump my problem on you and expect you to solve it, it may show a lack of respect, but if it's a good question, it should be answered. What you wrote about respect is good advice, but it is not a criterion for deciding the acceptability of a question. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:47 | comment | added | user102937 | Exactly right. Respect people's time. That's it. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:22 | history | edited | George StockerMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 29 characters in body |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | gen_Eric | Yes. This is what I believe too. Homework questions are ok, as long as they don't just paste the assignment here and expect us to do it for them (I've seen plenty of this). They need to respect that we are taking our (unpaid) free time to help. I always say "why should I take time to help you if can't even take the time to write a question?" Clearly, if they don't know where to start, they won't have any code to show, but they at least need to show that they have a "minimal understanding of the question being solved" and a minimal level of respect for people willing to help. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:40 | history | answered | George StockerMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |