4 replaced http://gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.stackexchange.com/
source | link
  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see How to interpret voting on identify-this-game questions?

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/17541/i-get-the-error-message-failed-to-initialize-the-gamestartup-interface-when-i-t"Failed to initialize the GameStartup Interface" when trying to run Crysis 2 demo - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback featureanonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an examplehere's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see How to interpret voting on identify-this-game questions?

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/17541/i-get-the-error-message-failed-to-initialize-the-gamestartup-interface-when-i-t - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see How to interpret voting on identify-this-game questions?

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on "Failed to initialize the GameStartup Interface" when trying to run Crysis 2 demo - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

3 replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
2 replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/2474/how-to-interpret-voting-on-identify-this-game-questionsHow to interpret voting on identify-this-game questions?

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/17541/i-get-the-error-message-failed-to-initialize-the-gamestartup-interface-when-i-t - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/2474/how-to-interpret-voting-on-identify-this-game-questions

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/17541/i-get-the-error-message-failed-to-initialize-the-gamestartup-interface-when-i-t - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

  1. Too localized - I think Matthew explained quite well why this isn't a good reason in his answer here.

  2. Upvotes are random - I don't quite see what make these types of questions have random upvotes. I certainly don't randomly upvote on ITG answers, see How to interpret voting on identify-this-game questions?

  3. Answers are guesses - first of all, I don't see how this is different from questions. Many answers there are also educated answers, and often these educated answers are the correct solution to the problem. In my eyes, educated guesses that often lead to correct answers are valuable content. I have certainly been helped by those types of answers, and so have thousands of others, judging from the view count on http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/17541/i-get-the-error-message-failed-to-initialize-the-gamestartup-interface-when-i-t - and that's just one example.

  4. Subjective - I disagree, there is a single, concrete, objective answer. These questions are definitely less subjective than "how to defeat this boss" ones.

  5. Not helpful for other users - as others have said, this is not necessarily a good thing to judge questions on. I bet 75% of questions on stackoverflow are not relevant to any other user, ever. In any case, there's the recently launch anonymous and low-rep feedback feature, and there are already a few ITG answers in those lists. And besides, I really thing those types of questions can be useful for anyone else who is searching for the same game.

  6. Problematic if other users have a really similar question, but the accepted answer does not satisfy them - this is a case that can happen with many other types of questions as well. If the new asker doesn't have any other data to provide, and yet her desired answer wasn't posted, well that's her problem - she doesn't have enough details to further narrow the options. If she does, she can open a new question, with more details. Just like with any other types of questions.

  7. No authoritative answer - I'm not sure I understand this argument, it sounds like a variation of "it's subjective" to me. If someone accepts an answer it's a pretty strong indication that this answer correctly fulfills the requirement of the question. I'd argue that ITG questions can get answers which are far more authoritative than questions asking for strategies, and we have tons of those.

  8. Too vague - in my eyes, this is the biggest argument. Some ITG questions are just too vague - meaning, there are too many answers that fulfill all the requirements but are not what the OP is looking for. This can happen with other question types as well (here's an example), but the nature of ITG make it more likely to happen with them. And this is a real, concrete problem. I support aggressively closing questions which are too vague.
    Now, what is too vague? That's a pretty vague definition, by itself! And we've had a similar argument with game-rec. Some supported allowing questions which are specific enough, but many argued that this is a very fuzzy definition. It's similar with ITGs, though there is a big difference here - mainly, that there is a single, concrete, objective, correct answer. So so far I've been just closing to vote everything which is too vague in my eyes. Obviously, that's as subjective as it gets... I'm just relying on my extensive experience, but I don't really think that "relying on Oak's experience" is a good policy. Then again, maybe "relying on the experience of 5 random high-rep users that care enough to close it" is a good policy - that is actually what is already happening.

1
source | link