Re-evaluating our site - what is the scope of an "acceptable" list, if it exists?

Question

We have a lot of open discussions on the subject of list questions - at least five of them. One conclusion I can draw from analyzing them is that we don't have a conclusion. There seems to be a faint consensus that there is an "acceptable" kind of list, at least within recommendations. But this consensus is very undefined - we don't have anything to measure against except our own opinions. Yes, we are driven by the community and each individual is free to judge these things on their own calls. But a successful system of community moderation involves an actual, concrete substance for us to make our judgment calls off of.

So I think it is time that we started to define the scope of what makes an "acceptable" list. I have selected 7 random questions, and abstracted them to the very essence of what they are a list of. Some are open, some are closed, some are subjective while some are objective.

1. Questions asking to list specific personal experience in gaming
2. Questions asking to list games according to specific mechanical criteria
3. Questions asking to list specific kinds of features in one or more games
4. Questions asking to list components used for a specific purpose in the gaming craft
5. Questions asking to list strategies used in a specific facet of high level play
6. Questions asking to list modifications to a specific game with a specific goal
7. Questions asking to list games that are like another game

The goal here is not to judge each of these individual questions as to whether they should be open or closed (but feel free to add that to your answer). The goal is to assess what kinds of lists we have been receiving, and perhaps might receive, and determine what we are and/or should be using to call judgment on these. Use these questions to understand the many different angles that list questions can take - understand what components and varieties of lists exist, what arguments there are to support them, and what arguments there are to fight against them. Attack the very essence - see that essence and see if it can be salvaged. And determine why it is that it may not be able to be salvaged.

We are suffering a lot of inconsistency in what judgment calls are being made because people are observing the scope differently in different posts. For example, on the topic of recommendations, how much narrower of a scope does "being like another game" compare to "being of this genre"? We have one open recommendation asking for games like a certain train simulation game - the essence of the question asking for train simulation (which is naught but a subgenre of transport simulations), yet we close a question asking for tile-based tactics games on a specific platform. We strike down subjective questions about tools and experiences, but allow subjective questions that are naught but shopping recommendations. What is it that makes some lists more valuable than others?

These contradictions we keep making, in letting some lists live while others of basically equivalent scope are harshly struck down, is really leaving holes in our site. Stack Overflow has a huge problem with grandfathered questions which, under the new concept, would not survive minutes. Let's not revive that problem here. If we want to allow list questions, we need to define clear, understandable criteria as to what defines an acceptable list. And whatever conclusion we come to, we need to enforce it, retroactively, and close all questions which do not meet the requirements.

We are 13 days into our Beta - we have been wandering practically blind for almost 2 weeks. Let us start to instate some rules to actually work off of. Please commit your opinions - this community needs to decide what it wants to be, and what it does not want to be. Think about what questions you allow in your definitions, and what our site becomes when these questions are incorporated. Think about what motivation we want people to have when they come to visit this site - what are the answers that people will be seeking.

---

A question on the parent site recently received some close votes with a reasoning of "Way too limited in scope". People can't ask questions that are too wide in scope, yet when they try to narrow the scope we are also blocking them. We are sending horribly mixed signals and making new users jump through really stupid hoops right now. This is going to kill this site if such a thing continues. This is why it is very important that we start to work harder in identifying what this scope is. It needs to be something that, when a user reads our FAQ, they can look at their question and 95% of the time know very clearly whether their question belongs or not.

Answer 1

[Reasoning] Doesn't solve a problem

Example: "What's your favorite Y".

Arguments Pro

• Such a question doesn't serve any purpose and is therefore not suitable for this site.

Arguments Con

Answer 2

I think it's not really that easy to draw a strict line on this.

In all my comments to List of X or subjective questions, I am very careful to start my sentence with "we prefer" (questions that have a definite single answer).

But there will be subjectivity in the decision to let a question live, SO has had 2 years to build its community and its standards, we can't expect to reach that level in 2 weeks.
Besides, SO has exceptions for a few old questions that are lists but are popular and are allowed to remain (of course, no new ones can be added now)

I'm not really answering your question, but my initial opinion is that it won't be so easy as to have a list of what can and what can't be asked so strictly, it will be a judgment call in that moment of time (community maturity, which people sees the question first, etc).

My opinion on the linked questions:

1. Should be closed: Doesn't really add any value to other gamers, it's just a discussion/poll/curiosity, but nothing more.
2. Could stay open: It has a lot of upvotes, it's an old question and it can offer some value to gamers.
3. Could stay open: as long as it's re-written, we could edit it to make it better; but should be closed because the same question can be asked about every other game, and we don't want that.
4. Keyword being "popular", Could stay open as long as it's re-written to ask for something specific about the "chat software"
5. Idem 4
6. IMO, this is a valid question.

_{disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind}

Answer 3

Disclaimer: I am the author of one of the listed examples, but I am not here to talk about my question. It is fine with me if it is closed if the community decides so. In this answer I only present my general opinion about acceptable questions at gaming.

A site like this can only be successful if people come here not only to ask questions, but also to answer questions. I don't think reputation is enough to draw people to this site. People need to have fun. Reading about other peoples problems is not fun. Reading about all kinds of gaming related stuff is fun. What bad does it do if people ask open ended questions? They don't actually hurt anybody. If there only single answer questions around, only some user will actually gain reputation, but everybody knows a game that is like game X. If it is a good suggestion they will receive reputation, if it is not, the better answers will flot atop. Thats why the SO system works. SO does not allow this kind of questions anymore because they reached the critical mass long ago. I believe this site should be more permissive until a critical mass of returning user is reached. Smarter Gamer did not ever reach the critical mass and went down, after the early users got bored. It would be sad to see gaming go the same route.

We actually need questions like the infamous "Jon Skeet Facts" question. Such questions make the reader return to the site. We need people that come back. If people only ask about their problem and then go away, nobody will be answering any questions. Later, if the site has gotten big enough open ended questions can be banned.

Answer 4

I think we should limit the amount of list questions being asked. There are more than enough real questions left for us to not ask these list questions.

When evaluating other meta questions I get the following guidelines:

• we don't want poll questions, since we don't want to have to clean them up in the long haul.
• questions shouldn't be subjective, argumentative or require extended discussion, because there are no measurable rules for answering or voting.
• it should generally cover:
  • game strategies and hints
  • software tools commonly used by gamers
  • matters that are unique to gamers
  • any kind of problem that makes you stop playing
• it shouldn't be indiscriminate, so there should be a limited amount of possible answers. In short, the fewer answers possible, the better.

These guidelines together perhaps form some reference for deciding whether to close or not. For example a question about voice chat software is on-topic when there's enough rules to define only a couple of answers.

What's the best voice chat software available for intermediate gamers?

The software doesn't have to be free, should have limited lag and may not have a bad influence on my connection speed. Furthermore, it should be widely used, be easy to setup with my own hosted server and should be user friendly while gaming (configurable shortcuts).

Now this question is perfectly answerable, because perhaps only TeamSpeak and Ventrillo would apply. This rules out all the non-gaming specific voice-chat solutions.

This is also an example how, by adding rules or specifications to a question it can go from being too broad to specific enough to be allowed. And because there's actually a measurable answer, this question is no longer a list and should NOT be Community Wiki.

Another way of improving the questions is rather than asking for a list (like 'recommend me a gaming computer for X', 'what are nice X games for X'), ask for a solution, this way the next time someone has the same question they can find the answer themselves.

For instance: How can I find open-source games? Can simply be answered with the Wikipedia article or an up to date website that's an expert on open-source gaming. A question like: what graphics card should I buy? Can be answered by referring to the best-buy guide from sites like Toms Hardware. You can come back any day and know that following the information in the answer will get you up-to-date and relevant information

---

Small side-step on Community Wiki: Here are some guidelines on Community Wiki I use when moderating on Super User:

• if it's a list and there isn't an answer that can be accepted, it should be Community Wiki
• if you would like others to be able to edit all the posts, to make it more complete or more consistent, it should be Community Wiki
• if the answers are likely to get out-dated and need updates, than again it should be Community Wikiit should be Community Wiki

So just because you no longer receive reputation (because others could do the work for you) doesn't mean it shouldn't follow our general guidelines about what is an on-topic question.

Answer 5

[Reasoning] Question about personal preferences

Example: "What's the best MMO out there?".

Arguments Pro

• Cannot be objectively answered.
• Invite argumentative discussions.

Arguments Con

Answer 6

1. Self Imposed Restrictions -- valid(but borderline)
2. What games offer a good multiplayer co-op experience? -- valid
3. Easter eggs in Megaman 1-6 -- valid
4. PC Voice Chat Software -- belongs on Super User
5. What are the popular opening builds for Terran in StarCraft 2? -- valid
6. Healer add-ons for end-game raiding in WoW? -- valid
7. GTA-4 like games for PS3 -- valid though possibly closable as subjective

Answer 7

I think all of the examples are undoubtedly off-topic. There is no problem to be resolved in those questions - there are plenty of other places to get these kinds of recommendations.

However, I think the success of StackOverflow was owed, in part, to the initial sense of discovery and fun that came about from taking part in these questions and while seasoned SO users know about meta and how to use it, I don't think we have enough seasoned users of Gaming, so closing and denying these more vague questions may make it harder to engage with new users.

Just like the need for a Politics forum so that the political discussion doesn't pervade the other discussions, we need users to understand that these questions have a home but it isn't the main gaming site. Unfortunately, that home isn't here yet as I think that's the 3rd place, the chat. Maybe once chat leaves beta we can start migrating these questions there.

Answer 8

[Reasoning] Cannot be answered Objectively

Example: "What are some fun new PC games?" Fun is a subjective quality to a game. Respondents cannot objectively answer what would be fun for the asker.

Arguments Pro

• No reuse value for the community

Arguments Con

Answer 9

This response is a direct discussion of my question, "PC voice chat software." I've added my general thoughts in another response.

I'm fine with the closure--really!--as long as we establish some guidelines. If I'm reading the responses to this thread correctly, the main disagreement with my question seems to center around the word "popular." To clarify, "popular" in this case was meant to get an understanding of which software large swaths of gamers use so that

1. I (and others) wouldn't be installing 2314328470 programs on my system and only using 2, and
2. I (and others) wouldn't be scrambling to install a program right before an event because everyone else in the group uses X, and I only have Y and Z installed.

"Popular" can also be measured within an individual's scope of experience: "I've been playing multiplayer games for X years, and I've always used software Y. Therefore, in my experience, software Y is the most popular."

But all that aside, people don't seem to like the word "popular," so I've taken it out.

Should the question be community wiki? There's no easy-to-find information about what CW actually means, so I don't know if that's the correct thing to do.

Should the question be tagged [subjective] (because it is)? I tried that after the fact, but somebody's undone it.

(And yes, I understand that CW and [subjective] aren't magic wands.)

I'd like to know how the rest of the community would prefer the question be formulated in order to make it acceptable. Or, if the guidelines that are established indicate my question should stay closed, that's fine too.

Edit:

Grace Note said:

To me, it was very clear that he wanted to get a survey of the different voice chat options in order to help narrow down the perfect choice for him.

I finally get it. And I don't feel I'm being picked on (but I appreciate the thought).

So based on what I'm reading, a more appropriate question intent would be "What choices are there for software with specific function X (voice chat) that can be used to assist people while they're performing task Y (playing multi-player PC games)?" since that's more in line with questions such as "What games are a lot like X?" and "Which games have features X, Y, and Z?" Does taking out "popular" achieve that? If not, how should the question be rephrased? (Granted the validity of these types of questions is still being debated anyway.)

Answer 10

We are sending mixed messages. There have been several game recommendation questions closed for being too broad. Yet this question has been closed for being too specific. The person clearly outlined what they were looking for, including specific characteristics. I feel that that question should remain open. It may not be broad enough in scope for the entire site, but if I was a single person out on the internet looking for the same type of games and I found that question, I'd rejoice.

I can't see new users finding this anything but frustrating. Even as someone who has been involved in the beta, I am finding it frustrating. Where is the line supposed to be drawn? I don't think we can be closing questions for being too broad then punishing others for being too specific.

Personally, I feel that it's more acceptable to say "Okay, you're question is way too broad, can you narrow it down for us?" than to say "Okay, that's entirely too specific, you need to make that more general so it appeals to more people." In situation A, you're making it easier for the experts to find/answer the question and also making it so the person will know how to ask better questions in the future. In situation B, you're practically punishing someone for being specific enough to know exactly what they are looking for, even though the question may be helpful to a few niche users in the future. I am of the opinion that it is important to cater to that niche as well.

Answer 11

I've been wandering into a similar path of discussion in the explain community wiki thread. So I'm going to repeat what I wrote there.

In my opinion it should be more important how useful a piece of information is to the community than how it was obtained. Purely social inquiries in other member's preferences definitely do not provide any benefit to the community. Similarly, stating one's own preferences and asking for matching items may help the OP but the probability of a second member having those exact preferences is negligible. But an open question that may not be ultimately answerable may still attract enough information to be of use to a broader audience.

• "Self Imposed Restrictions" to me looks like nothing more than chit chat. There is no kind of factual information about gaming that can be gained from such a question.
• "What games offer a good multiplayer co-op experience?" is formulated very subjectively but imo it touches an objective topic: co-op multiplayer games. They are rare enough to consider an assembled list to be useful for more gamers than just the OP.
• "Easter eggs in Megaman 1-6" while a list of easter eggs can be objectively compiled it is unclear to me what the benefit of it would be.
• "PC Voice Chat Software" An assembled list of voice chat software is definitely something that can be useful beyond the OP's situation. The question of a tool's popularity is somewhat borderline but does strictly speaking not depend on the community's preferences. The rough popularity of a tool can be assessed objectively enough from one's own experiences and does have relevance - for example when you are deciding which one(s) you want to support in a guild/clan. I think this should be tolerated but watched for excessive argumentation.
• "What are the popular opening builds for Terran in StarCraft 2?" This one is difficult for me to classify. How current and relevant will this information be for the next one to ask himself this question?
• "Healer add-ons for end-game raiding in WoW?" The question if formulated pretty neutral and the restrictions are not too far fetched. The topic isn't overly exotic and personal preferences are asked for. I'd let it be.

Answer 12

It's a hugely difficult problem.

I suppose my first observation is that we have to choose our philohsopy: either we totally ban any subjective question (I don't like this approach) or we accept that we're each going to see subjective questions we dislike.

Some thoughts on types of question:

Asking the community

These questions I like. I'm thinking of questions similar to the Best programming books or Best Java libraries questions found on SO.

Self Imposed Restrictions seems to be asking about meta-gaming like Permanent Death or Kev and Alice. It could probably stand to be edited a little but I think the point is that it might lead others to new game experiences. Achievements are a prime example of meta-gaming and if this question were phrased as a search for interesting and widely applicable "universal achievements" it might be really good.

What games offer a good multiplayer co-op experience? is specific and seems unlikely there is a single webpage out there that captures a good answer.

Questions that are clearly one of a set

I dislike these as I think they beg the same question for the other factions. Asking for end-game raiding advice or opening strategies seems more acceptable so it's a matter of phrasing really.

What are the popular opening builds for Terran in StarCraft 2?

Healer add-ons for end-game raiding in WoW?

Questions that could have a single answer if written differently

Definitely a no though I understand why people ask like this. I'd love to talk about the Braid stars but it's well documented already and rehashing it is a bit indulgent.

Easter eggs in Megaman 1-6

Could instead be: Where can I find a list of Megaman easter eggs?

Answer 13

I would like to see a list of 3 or 5 guidelines but I also suspect that every subjective question has some redeeming quality.

Perhaps the solution is not to close subjective questions but instead to lead by example, editing each subjectively worded question into an acceptable variation.

Answer 14

It's going to be very difficult to determine a set of standards, seeing as we're dealing with so many broad genres and particular tastes. I also feel like I don't want to see this place getting to the point where we're saying "Your question was closed because you didn't word it correctly... even though everyone knew what you meant" just for formalities sake.

My personal take on the above listed 7.

• "Self Imposed Restrictions" - This could be summarized down further, but it's too broad and mildly off-topic that I feel it should remain closed. If the question was, instead, something along the lines of "In the game X, what are some ways of alternating your play style to make the game feel different?", with a healthy explanation in the body text, it might be able to pass.
• "What games offer a good co-op multiplayer experience?" - Too general. The list could go on forever, and "good" is completely subjective. My passion for MMORPGs and FPS games may be completely lost on the OP.
• "Easter Eggs in MegaMan games NES (1-6)" - It's not directly beneficial, but easter eggs are definitely a part of the gaming experience for some, if not most. Still, this particular question draws on a large collection of games, and as mentioned, we could be seeing this for every game which would just create unwanted noise.
• "PC voice chat software" - Even though it's not about a video game or gaming related, it's a very closely related topic that I personally feel is warranted on the site. If we're going to allow questions like this, I feel that asking about preferred software to assist in gaming is perfectly within the scope of the site.
• "What are the popular openings/builds for Terran in StarCraft2" - This seems a tad localized in time for my tastes. Especially for RTS games, strategy is constantly evolving around the metagame. Unless that particular answer gets updated by the person every time new strategies come out, it's not going to be relevant 100% of the time. A better question might ask for links to pre-existing strategies, such as on a heavily updated wiki.
• "Healer add-ons for end-game raiding in WoW" - Again, localized, though less so than prior due to the general evolution of add-ons / mods. I think as long as people are careful to craft their questions/answers in these types of questions, it'll be fine.
• "GTA-4 like games for PS3" - I think this is fine, as we're defining the genre, the platform, and asking for similar style games. I can't bring much opinion into this, because no matter how much I say "Street Fighter is like GTA-4", nobody will believe me. I can voice my opinion on games that are listed, but that's beside the point.

Answer 15

[Reasoning] Belongs to different SE site

Example: "Tools for capturing gameplay video?"

Arguments Pro

Arguments Con

• Official FAQ recommends not to think about what other sites do.

Answer 16

I wanted to post this example of a List of X question: Good Websites for Game Reviews. The question seems to be grandfathered in, but I think it's a useful question that people might want to know the answer to. Reading reviews is a big part of being a gamer and has a lot more to do for the community than just purchase suggestions.

What are your thoughts on this specific example?

Answer 17

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

Answer 18

Perhaps it would be useful to start listing criteria with which we can use to judge these. While discussing whether or not we want "list" style questions is important, having criteria we can agree on will help clear up this discussion.

Consider the following:

• Will this be useful to a lot of people?
• Is there potentially one good answer?

While these aren't requirements, they are good guidelines.

Answer 19

I think the problem here is you guys don't have a goal/purpose in mind for this site. If you remove all these subjective questions you are just going to duplicate gamesfaqs.com

Google search works fine for both sites.

Answer 20

The answer to the question of what is acceptable for these depends on other things being defined first. The first, and most obvious, is what is this site meant to be? The answer I've received to this question is that it is meant to be a place for hard core, or expert, gamers to come and ask/answer questions.

With that in mind, then what is the perceived definition of a hard core/expert gamer? Is it someone who plays one game 20 hours a week on average? Is it someone who plays so much they play in tournaments for money? Is it someone who plays many, many games and does each of them well? This is not something that is so easily defined. Then after you have that you have to make assumptions on what they want.

This really needs a set of standards that there can be very little deviation from.

With that in mind I find that I don't mind them, which I've stated already on here. But, the consensus is to get rid of them so I would say cut all list type questions regardless of if they walk a line that might be OK or not. Leaving room for judgement calls will only leave room to muddy the waters at this point. Then over time, modify the standards based on whatever factors are important here (traffic, questions, etc).

Answer 21

I no longer agree with the following. Read my new position on the topic.

List of attributes that make a list acceptable imho:

• On topic
• Community wiki
• One item per answer, with some description
• Answered by experts better than it can be answered by random people on the internet (a list of co-op games can be made with some googling; you can gauge popularity with tag counts here)
• Answerable by our community of experts (a list question of no or too few answers is not very useful; see the easter eggs question, which we can't yet answer)
• Not actually span more than two pages of answers (look at this question; how much of the community has seen the entries on page eight? how long, however, would this list be if all the xkcd/dilbert comics were on the same answer?)
• Not be a continuation of an existing question that has hit three pages and got closed for its breadth.

Do I forget anything? Just add it in.

Answer 22

Assembled Reasoning for In-/Exclusion from site

I've marked this as CW so everyone can improve this. I think it would be hand if this was voted up so it's more visible. At this point the focus lies on what we want here (main site - not meta) - not where we want it.

Opinions about what is not welcomed here.

1. Questions that do not solve a problem for the poster. I.e. "What's your favorite X?"
2. Overly broad questions that invite answers the poster is not interested in.
3. Questions purely asked to satisfy curiosity. (also see 1)
4. Questions about personal preferences because. (also see 1 & 3)
5. Questions that are one of a set. I.e. "Startup Tactics for X in Y"
6. Questions that could also be asked on a different SE site.
7. Questions that cannot be answered subjectively
8. Questions that cannot be answered exhaustively in one answer.

If you find more opinions please add them or put them in a comment. I'm also going to add one more answer for each of these opinions so we can vote on them...

Answer 23

I am extremely disappointed to find so many list questions marked [closed]. I don't think subjectivity is a reason to close a question. Sure, a question like "What is the best game of all time?" is more of a poll than a question to be answered, but I would LOVE to see such a question linger, with all the discussion it would generate, and seeing the games that the most people vote on float to the top.

Would that sort of thing really hurt the site?

I think there is also hypocrisy at work here in stating that there are other places to find lists of games, but the fact that there are other places for game questions (cough gamefaqs) is no big deal. Of course there are other places! But to make this site successful, I think you want to encourage community by allowing some amount of subjectivity in the door.

To be fair, I am disappointed that Stack Overflow also seems to have this policy. Finding the What's your favorite programmer cartoon was one of the only reasons I returned to Stack Overflow with any regularity in the beginning. Now of course it's an indispensable resource... but it certainly wouldn't have become that without a strong community. And it never felt to me that subjective questions detracted from the questions with good answers.

Answer 24

[Reasoning] Just to satisfy curiosity

Example: "What do you like the most about gaming?"

Arguments Pro

• No benefit whatsoever to community

Arguments Con

Answer 25

[Reasoning] Overly broad question

Example: "Currently popular strategies in X" when more criteria are desired but not stated.

Arguments Pro

• Invites undesired answers.
• Wastes time.

Arguments Con

• Difficult to detect.

Answer 26

[Reasoning] One in a Million

Example: "Good Leveling Guides for X in Y?" Possible permutations among alternative X and Y are countless.

Arguments Pro

• could easily swamp the site
• could probably be grouped into a more general question
• high chance for redundancy

Arguments Con

Answer 27

[Reasoning] No single answer

Example: Game recommendations.

Arguments Pro

• SE expects one answer to be flagged as accepted. If the queried information is spread over multiple posts this becomes difficult.

Arguments Con

• The fact that a question cannot be answered exhaustively in one post does not detract from it's value for the community.

Answer 28

My personal take.

• "Self Imposed Restrictions"
  • Close
• "What games offer a good co-op multiplayer experience?"
  • Close, very subjective, and generates too much noise
• "Easter Eggs in MegaMan games NES (1-6)"
  • Close, though "How do I get Easter egg X" would be fine
• "PC voice chat software"
  • Close
• "What are the popular openings/builds for Terran in StarCraft2"
  • I think is is bad b/c of "popular", and because it's pretty broad. An OK question would be "How can I quickly build many Space Marines in StarCraft2"
• "Healer add-ons for end-game raiding in WoW"
  • Close, it's a "lets build a list" question. "Is there an add on to track healing aggro in WoW?" would be acceptable.
• "GTA-4 like games for PS3"
  • Close, I think this kind of question is extremely subjective and generates a lot of noise.