Voting on the future of list of X questions

Question

As of now we have several questions discussing what to do with list of X and games-rec questions:

Here's a summary of all that has been said before (and was upvoted):

• Should we allow poll questions - Result: no, we shouldn't
• Best/favourite/subjective list type questions - Result: no potential for becoming an "expert" at game recommendation
• Game-recommendations and single, correct answers - Result: they may not be too broad
• Re-evaluating our site scope - Breaking down the results for this one:
  • We should allow some, because they help built and maintain a community. However, most of the commenters disagree.
  • This is reflected in an answer: list questions don't solve a problem
  • they 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.
  • it should ask for a solution
  • we can't eliminate them all (as commented by Gnoupi), look at Super User or Stack Overflow for reference

My conclusion: all list questions should be closed unless they pass these strict guidelines.

This means a lot of questions will be closed and hearts will be broken, but we can't please everyone when trying to achieve our goal of becoming the resource for high quality gaming question. It's also generally better to close a question first and to discuss reopening later, than doing it the other way around.

It may be harsh, but at least zero-tolerance is very clear and unambiguous. I'd much rather see a meta discussion for reopening a list question, than having endless discussion on which to close and which to keep open.

_{I would also like to quote Grace Note, because it perfectly sums up what I believe this site should be all about:}

Which is what divides questions and discussions/polls - the former is interested in the content that provides a solution, while the latter is interested in the people who produce that content. There is no expertise when it comes to the latter - it takes absolutely no prior knowledge to cast opinions.

Answer 1

I think the major flaw in list questions is not only the size, but the approach that we take. I completely disagree with the popular approach of "one-per-answer" polling for list questions. I know, everyone loves the fun of the rating system that you can simulate with votes. However, I believe it is that which ruins list questions, because it is what highlights the subjective and inconclusive nature of list questions.

If we take into account what it means to be a valid question, the answer is one that provides a conclusive solution - it ends the question. If we take into account what it means to be a list question, it means that the answer is a list. If you are providing a single item per answer, then while the set of answers will create a list, no single answer will actually provide a conclusive answer. And while downvotes will often siphon out the off-topic elements in the list, what use are upvotes for but to express simple "like" of a game rather than actual "usefulness" of the answer? Technically, all answers which are on-topic are "useful" because they actually provide elements that the question is looking for. But it's unfocused.

I've proposed this before in comments, so now I'm going to propose this as an answer. This is not a complete solution, but merely an integral part of the formula which I believe is necessary for an acceptable list. There are other elements necessary, such as the scope that we still need to define more clearly.

---

Instead of taking this poll approach, let's use Community Wiki in a wise fashion. Instead of listing one game/software/item per answer, let's have one big answer with a low barrier of entry that people can enter the aggregate data into. And ideally, the answer gets accepted.

Pros

• The answer provides a conclusion to the question.
• Provided someone besides the question author posted that answer, accepting it will float all contributions to the top.
• People will be able to find the complete list in one answer rather than having to surf through pages and pages of 30 answers each.
• Items are easier to look at side-by-side.
• Community Wiki means that it is easier for lots of people to contribute to the list. The goal here is maintainability, not avoiding reputation.
• Duplication is easier to handle because it only requires edit privileges rather than deletion.
• No need to wait for a moderator to put Protected status on the question in order to block it from junk and noise, because CW edit requirement is much higher than 10.
• It resembles the objective list questions that get asked every now and then, which also have their lists in one answer. Note that those don't have to be CW because those don't have to be maintained over time or constructed by multiple users.

Cons

• It needs to be maintained, whose job is that going to be?

  • This is a non-issue in my eyes, but someone will bring it up. Maintenance is exactly the same as if the question was in one-per-answer format. We rely on the community, people just add things when they think of them. With CW, you don't need to have some singular group or entity responsible for the upkeep.

• People don't get to rate individual answers.

  • This depends on whether you value singular items in the list, or the list as a whole.

• It's difficult to add details to the items in the list.

  • My first thought is that outside of gaming recommendations, most lists can have their items described in one or two lines. Highlighting the key points is generally more useful for comparison. Short enough lists can even include a summary about how the items compare to each other. Linking will also be your best friend for providing additional information.

  • My second, and more hesitant thought, is that one could possibly post a separate answer to highlight individual items with more detail. These would be linked from the main answer, providing basically a sort of index. This allows a lot of detail, and even enables the rating system if people like it while not sacrificing the accepted answer's ability to dock and contain everything.

Comments on this suggestion are more than welcome.

Answer 2

Edit: If you disagree please post a comment to promote discussion.

I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss the subject of [game-rec] questions. I realize there are a number of topics on this issue with diverse responses (one even linked by Ivo here) and that I've responded in some, but I believe we need to come to consensus on this issue and that this is the best thread to do it in.

On the subject of [game-rec]; I am aware they are popular, certainly I have enjoyed some, but I strongly believe that gaming.se is not a good place for them. I find that they are detrimental to the community. Additionally, I believe that the stackexchange engine is a poor engine for providing these recommendations (I'll suggest a better alternative to emphasis this point later).

To address this, let us first consider why people think that gaming.se is a good place for these sorts of questions. Recommendations are a sign that people believe that the community is of high quality and thus the asker values our opinion. Additionally, the form of the stackexchange questions (Question followed by a series of answers which the community votes on) seems useful as good or bad recommendations can easily be identified by the voting. Finally, the presence of the "community wiki" seems a tacit approval to questions which do not have a single answer (as recommendations do not).

I've discussed why I believe that these questions are harmful in another thread; and even why they encourage further harmful behavior. I realize this may be considered a bit of a "slippery slope" argument but considering the rise of arguments like RCIX's it seems more and more present. To quote Grace:

Your "loophole" for getting the question in is exactly the kind of reasoning which has made me come to dislike recommendation questions. Speaking on substance, it is no different than other questions asking for a list of games with a specific feature, like, say, a certain style of costume design.

If we consider questions on their own merit, we see that there is little value beyond any other sort of list question. As we seem opposed to those as polls or "favorite," I see no reason that [game-rec] should be given special treatment.

The purpose of our site is to gather people of expert quality in the field of gaming to answer hard questions in that field. These people are drawn to questions of high detail on topic the experts on interested in. By comparison polls, favorites lists, and even game recommendations do not fall into that category. What's worse, the prevalence of [game-rec] questions makes the site seem of even lower quality. The result is detrimental to the continuing existence of this community.

To further supplement this discussion I'd like to posit that the stack exchange engine is not an ideally designed resource for game recommendations. Instead, using the stack exchange engine for this purpose is the equivalent of using a forum as a QA engine, and we all know how effective that is.

An ideal website for gaming recommendations will take into the account the following:

1. the ability to rank suggestions (as SE does)
2. the ability to discuss suggestions (which SE does poorly through comments)
3. knowledge of the person asking (which SE does not support)
4. the ability to identify specific traits in games (which SE does not support)
5. the ability to contribute which suggests were successful (which SE does poorly as there maybe more than one answer)

From this list we can see that the stackexchange engine only supports a subset of the necessary features, and most of those poorly. What's worse, feature #3 is the most desirable feature (and not supported). Instead let us derive a website which would support these features. Consider a website which allowed you to identify which games you liked, ranked them, and allowed people to tag features of games. Such a site would allow for quick and easy identification based on specific traits. Additionally, user data could be analysed for automatic suggestions. Finally, people would be able to comment on which games where like others with a simple voting system to help people identify which suggestions were good or bad.

As you can see even this elementary example is vastly superior to stackexchange for this purpose. It draws on elements of websites like Amazon.com and Netflix.com which uses user rankings to make suggestions and get a "feel" for what users would like. A social version of this would allow other users to get that "feel" quickly and easily and thus increase the effectiveness of their recommendations. Without the ability to get the "feel" the recommendations are little more than guesses. It is this reason, above all others, why game-rec questions are such a bad decision on gaming.se. The resulting answers have little merit beyond listing highly ranked games in the same genre (which other sites already do effectively).

If gaming.se is to survive and become a successful community of experts, I do not believe that game recommendations have any place.