Timeline for What should we do with questions without effort?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cs.stackexchange.com/ with https://cs.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 22, 2012 at 1:38 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Raphael, then it seems I have forgotten it. :) | |
| May 21, 2012 at 15:09 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @Kaveh: No, that discussion was on and about cs.SE. In the early days, though, so I don't quite remember the question that prompted it. I think it was programming language related. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 13:58 | comment | added | Kaveh | @Raphael, regarding the first comment: I agree. regarding the second comment: I guess you are referring to the discussion on cstheory meta. Remember that they are not bad questions but only off-topic because of cstheory's scope. I don't think that applies to Computer Science so level of difficulty should not be a concern. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 11:13 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | @Kaveh Just noticed: "Even when there is an answer on these sources an answer from an expert may reveal information, knowledge, and insight these articles lack. Here is a good example. The question looks quite easy but I don't know if there is any place you can find this in." -- we have argued before whether bad questions with good answers should be closed, and said "yes", provided the question can not be salvaged. I think that is a reasonable strategy. There can be gems of wisdom in answers to any question; that does not mean we should allow every crappy question. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 10:47 | comment | added | user742 | Raphael, We don't have anything in close options or FAQ, to close questions without effort, my point is, this question is effortless, so it's better to close it, but this is just my opinion, it's not CS rule, may be we need add some information to FAQ part, to say what are the valid questions in this site. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 8:02 | history | edited | RaphaelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 308 characters in body
|
| May 21, 2012 at 7:59 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | I agree, Kaveh. However, if the OP does not say what he has tried and does not list failed approaches, we can not know what he has done. If -- as in this case -- the solution is easy to find, this means he has not tried at all (imho). Therefore, close. You can understand "easy to find via Google" or "in Wikipedia" also as benchmark for "has he tried the obvious ways?" which, if answered negatively, means he has not tried at all. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 4:52 | comment | added | Kaveh | If the OP has tried to answer the question by themselves first (by using Google, Wikipedia, Searching for similar questions on the SE network, etc.) and hasn't been able to find a satisfying answer or doesn't understand the answers (it happens, you cannot expect much from a first year undergraduate) then the question is fine. IMO, the difficulty is not what is relevant, what is relevant is that OP has spent time thinking about the question and has shown effort in answering the question before asking others for help. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 4:52 | comment | added | Kaveh | Even when there is an answer on these sources an answer from an expert may reveal information, knowledge, and insight these articles lack. Here is a good example. The question looks quite easy but I don't know if there is any place you can find this in. A better criteria, in my opinion, is whether the OP has put some effort trying to answer the question by themselves before asking other to help. | |
| May 21, 2012 at 0:30 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mod | “I think Gilles is right” and yet I'm downvoting. I disagree with a policy that involves a search engine to determine questions that are too easy. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 22:49 | comment | added | Raphael Mod | This answer is intended to provide a "voting" alternative to Gilles'. | |
| May 20, 2012 at 22:48 | history | answered | RaphaelMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |