Return to Answer

I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples. As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.

Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers. Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.

DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists. I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.

This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :

1. make the crucial question prominent and clear, preferably summarised in the title, and
2. include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.

The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.
(See : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)

As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process.

I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples. As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.

Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers. Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.

DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists. I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.

This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :

1. make the crucial question prominent and clear, preferably summarised in the title, and
2. include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.

The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.
(See : The practice of answering a question in its comments area)

As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process.

I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples. As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.

Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers. Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.

DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists. I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.

This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :

1. make the crucial question prominent and clear, preferably summarised in the title, and
2. include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined, but not so much that reading it becomes a chore.

The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.
(See : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)

As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process.

I agree with knzhou that it is more profitable to discuss concrete (linked) examples. As scientists we like to see the evidence and judge for ourselves rather than adopt somebody else's opinion on an issue.

Your question seems to imply that the fault is with those who post comments or answers. Whether or not that is true, I agree with dmckee that if question-setters want better answers, it is their responsibility to ask better questions.

DanielSank reminds us that detailed advice about how to ask (and how to answer) already exists. I think the reasons it is overlooked or ignored are that (i) it is not prominent, so users don't know it exists or where to find it, and (ii) it is far too long.

This leads me to suggest that question-setters be advised to :

1. make the crucial question prominent and clear, preferably summarised in the title, and
2. include just enough context to make the difficulty understandable and well defined, but not so much that it obscures the crucial question or that reading it becomes a chore.

The advice to those who answer also needs to be more prominent, in particular encouraging them to use comments to ask for clarification and further details, rather than to post outline solutions.
(See : http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8821/the-practice-of-answering-a-question-in-its-comments-area?cb=1.)

As I have suggested in answer to another Meta question, perhaps a very succint reminder of site policy/standards could be incorporated into the question/answer-posting process.