Skip to main content
Arqade

Return to Answer

added 1417 characters in body; added 17 characters in body
Source Link
Billy Jo
Billy Jo
  • 797
  • 3
  • 6

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the public-facing verbiage indicates (to me, anyway) that questions must be answerable, not that they must only have one correct answer and that you must accept that answer. This implies to me that lists are acceptable, even if the question's original wording doesn't conform to the precise SO "standard." Comments, editing, and education are going to be just as important as the guidelines we establish here. And if the asker thinks a specific response answers their question and they accept it, even better.

It's also important that we try to understand our audience. The Area 51 proposal defines our audience as "passionate gamers from all platforms (computers and consoles)." Yes, at first, our users will be a subset of the SE family of sites. Many of them have technical backgrounds and can be reasonably expected to know and follow the rules (myself excepted, eh? ;]).

But if/when the site exits beta and gains popularity, can the typical gamer--even a passionate one--really be expected to read up and scour existing questions and comb meta for an hour just so they know what kinds of questions they can ask and how to ask them? The FAQ goes into some detail, of course. But (and this is written with my gamer, non-tech husband's input) if I'm a typical gamer, and I have a question, and I find a gaming Q&A site, I'm likely to just head straight for the ask page and get really ticked off when my question gets closed because five strangers didn't like my wording or that I asked for a list.

SU is probably the best corollary we have for this type of behavior, but I'm not active over there and don't know how it was handled.

Something else we need to consider is whether passionate gamers will end up equaling passionate, returning forum members. If that means allowing a broader range of subjective and open-ended questions than would be typical on other SE sites, I don't think that's a bad thing. Individual SE sites are going to be run by their individual communities, so I don't think we have to stick strictly to the SO standards of what is and is not an acceptable question.

Edit:

I'd also like to know people's thoughts on a few quotes from the FAQ:

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion.

[T]his is a place for questions that can be answered!

When you have decided which answer is the most helpful to you, mark it as the accepted answer.

This lets other people know that you have received a good answer to your question.

Nowhere in the FAQ is it stated that a question must able to have a correct answer. The third quote even specifically indicates that it's up to the subjective judgement of the asker to decide which answer is the accepted one. I see non-subjectivity and limited discussion as requirements. But I'm curious how "able to be answered correctly" became a requirement.

(Of course anyone can quote a few phrases and twist them to their purpose. I hope it's clear that's not my intention. I'm genuinely curious to know people's thoughts on the above quotes given the current environment and timbre of the discussion.)

Now taking the first quote and running, I don't think a list is inherently subjective. I think some requirements of an acceptable list are

  • Doesn't ask for personal preferences or anecdotes
  • Doesn't ask for "best"
  • Isn't a poll
  • Asks that each list item be provided in a separate response
  • Asks that each response list specific details and be formatted consistently

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the public-facing verbiage indicates (to me, anyway) that questions must be answerable, not that they must only have one correct answer and that you must accept that answer. This implies to me that lists are acceptable, even if the question's original wording doesn't conform to the precise SO "standard." Comments, editing, and education are going to be just as important as the guidelines we establish here. And if the asker thinks a specific response answers their question and they accept it, even better.

It's also important that we try to understand our audience. The Area 51 proposal defines our audience as "passionate gamers from all platforms (computers and consoles)." Yes, at first, our users will be a subset of the SE family of sites. Many of them have technical backgrounds and can be reasonably expected to know and follow the rules (myself excepted, eh? ;]).

But if/when the site exits beta and gains popularity, can the typical gamer--even a passionate one--really be expected to read up and scour existing questions and comb meta for an hour just so they know what kinds of questions they can ask and how to ask them? The FAQ goes into some detail, of course. But (and this is written with my gamer, non-tech husband's input) if I'm a typical gamer, and I have a question, and I find a gaming Q&A site, I'm likely to just head straight for the ask page and get really ticked off when my question gets closed because five strangers didn't like my wording or that I asked for a list.

SU is probably the best corollary we have for this type of behavior, but I'm not active over there and don't know how it was handled.

Something else we need to consider is whether passionate gamers will end up equaling passionate, returning forum members. If that means allowing a broader range of subjective and open-ended questions than would be typical on other SE sites, I don't think that's a bad thing. Individual SE sites are going to be run by their individual communities, so I don't think we have to stick strictly to the SO standards of what is and is not an acceptable question.

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the public-facing verbiage indicates (to me, anyway) that questions must be answerable, not that they must only have one correct answer and that you must accept that answer. This implies to me that lists are acceptable, even if the question's original wording doesn't conform to the precise SO "standard." Comments, editing, and education are going to be just as important as the guidelines we establish here. And if the asker thinks a specific response answers their question and they accept it, even better.

It's also important that we try to understand our audience. The Area 51 proposal defines our audience as "passionate gamers from all platforms (computers and consoles)." Yes, at first, our users will be a subset of the SE family of sites. Many of them have technical backgrounds and can be reasonably expected to know and follow the rules (myself excepted, eh? ;]).

But if/when the site exits beta and gains popularity, can the typical gamer--even a passionate one--really be expected to read up and scour existing questions and comb meta for an hour just so they know what kinds of questions they can ask and how to ask them? The FAQ goes into some detail, of course. But (and this is written with my gamer, non-tech husband's input) if I'm a typical gamer, and I have a question, and I find a gaming Q&A site, I'm likely to just head straight for the ask page and get really ticked off when my question gets closed because five strangers didn't like my wording or that I asked for a list.

SU is probably the best corollary we have for this type of behavior, but I'm not active over there and don't know how it was handled.

Something else we need to consider is whether passionate gamers will end up equaling passionate, returning forum members. If that means allowing a broader range of subjective and open-ended questions than would be typical on other SE sites, I don't think that's a bad thing. Individual SE sites are going to be run by their individual communities, so I don't think we have to stick strictly to the SO standards of what is and is not an acceptable question.

Edit:

I'd also like to know people's thoughts on a few quotes from the FAQ:

Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion.

[T]his is a place for questions that can be answered!

When you have decided which answer is the most helpful to you, mark it as the accepted answer.

This lets other people know that you have received a good answer to your question.

Nowhere in the FAQ is it stated that a question must able to have a correct answer. The third quote even specifically indicates that it's up to the subjective judgement of the asker to decide which answer is the accepted one. I see non-subjectivity and limited discussion as requirements. But I'm curious how "able to be answered correctly" became a requirement.

(Of course anyone can quote a few phrases and twist them to their purpose. I hope it's clear that's not my intention. I'm genuinely curious to know people's thoughts on the above quotes given the current environment and timbre of the discussion.)

Now taking the first quote and running, I don't think a list is inherently subjective. I think some requirements of an acceptable list are

  • Doesn't ask for personal preferences or anecdotes
  • Doesn't ask for "best"
  • Isn't a poll
  • Asks that each list item be provided in a separate response
  • Asks that each response list specific details and be formatted consistently
Source Link
Billy Jo
Billy Jo
  • 797
  • 3
  • 6

I think it's worth pointing out that most of the public-facing verbiage indicates (to me, anyway) that questions must be answerable, not that they must only have one correct answer and that you must accept that answer. This implies to me that lists are acceptable, even if the question's original wording doesn't conform to the precise SO "standard." Comments, editing, and education are going to be just as important as the guidelines we establish here. And if the asker thinks a specific response answers their question and they accept it, even better.

It's also important that we try to understand our audience. The Area 51 proposal defines our audience as "passionate gamers from all platforms (computers and consoles)." Yes, at first, our users will be a subset of the SE family of sites. Many of them have technical backgrounds and can be reasonably expected to know and follow the rules (myself excepted, eh? ;]).

But if/when the site exits beta and gains popularity, can the typical gamer--even a passionate one--really be expected to read up and scour existing questions and comb meta for an hour just so they know what kinds of questions they can ask and how to ask them? The FAQ goes into some detail, of course. But (and this is written with my gamer, non-tech husband's input) if I'm a typical gamer, and I have a question, and I find a gaming Q&A site, I'm likely to just head straight for the ask page and get really ticked off when my question gets closed because five strangers didn't like my wording or that I asked for a list.

SU is probably the best corollary we have for this type of behavior, but I'm not active over there and don't know how it was handled.

Something else we need to consider is whether passionate gamers will end up equaling passionate, returning forum members. If that means allowing a broader range of subjective and open-ended questions than would be typical on other SE sites, I don't think that's a bad thing. Individual SE sites are going to be run by their individual communities, so I don't think we have to stick strictly to the SO standards of what is and is not an acceptable question.