Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • "You might also consider objectively reviewing all the answers, and selecting the one where the contribution was above and beyond what you originally asked." No, because it would imply that there is a best way, when there isn't. Commented Feb 2, 2010 at 16:06
  • @zombies - if that's your definition of "answer" and how you decide to use the tools the site gives you, then fine. Why are you asking us what to do when you've already decided what the 'accepted' answer is for, and when you will or won't use it? Use it, or don't use it. It really doesn't matter - it's merely a tool. Commented Feb 2, 2010 at 16:54
  • 2
    @zombies - however, I urge you to accept the suggestion in the FAQ when posting future questions: "Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered! " (emphasis added) - your question CANNOT be "answered" with a final, objective, measurably "ideal" solution. Commented Feb 2, 2010 at 16:58
  • I thought this was a place for meta discussion. Commented Feb 3, 2010 at 14:18
  • @zom - Sorry, you presented your question as though you had a problem, and I gave you a solution. I'm an engineer and it's hard for me to discuss problems without also attempting to introduce solutions. Once you indicated that you had additional constraints that actually resolved the problem, I simply showed you that you already know the solution. I suppose I could re-approach the question with the intent to change your mind, but I don't think your current usage is wrong at all - it only differs from mine very slightly... Commented Feb 3, 2010 at 15:30