Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

I created a post here

Tags on anything

Almost all of my stackoverflow question are being denied for being vague. What could be done to this specific post to make the question I'm asking less vague?

I've rephrased the question several times adding details to the question upon request (details I do not feel are necessary or all that helpful to the query, but were insisted upon).

In response to posting this latest question, several user have systematically gone through many of my posts marking them down. I can't tell if its pedantry or malice at work but I am besides myself with disgust.

share|improve this question
What the common dangers of handling the tagging of all componenets in a system with a single tag table. <- This is impossible to answer unless someone has been in the exact same situation as you, in which case it is only very difficult to answer. You could help by providing some schema and defining your terms more clearly ("tags" for example). Additionally, it is better to try implementing your proposed system, and coming back if you run into a specific problem. – Asad Saeeduddin Jan 4 '13 at 2:11
I will edit the post to better represent these concerns. Is there a way to ask the question without an implementation? I have never in my life read that it is prudent to implement a system before a design is fleshed out. If there were errors in this particular implementation they might not reveal themselves for years when the problem is vastly more complex and expensive to address. – eigen_enthused Jan 4 '13 at 2:26
several user have systematically gone through many of my posts marking them down. This is called serial downvoting. Based on your profile, I'd say you're exaggerating by calling it "several users" or "many posts": you have only two old posts that were downvoted once each (not that that makes serial downvoting excusable). Generally, these are reversed by a nightly script. – David Robinson Jan 4 '13 at 2:26
That probably true. I'm not familiar enough with the practice to know if that a small amount, but considering that the posts were from unrelated topics, and marked down seconds after the initial question, its clear someone was going out of their way to do it. – eigen_enthused Jan 4 '13 at 2:31
It does look like serial downvoting. Still, calling it "several users" is exaggerating, since it is at most one. As for your question: questions like "what kind of problems might I run into" tend to be less constructive, though I did vote to reopen based on the edits. – David Robinson Jan 4 '13 at 2:35
You're basically asking if we can foresee any "unforeseen complications" that your plan is vulnerable to. I'm sure you will understand why people find this difficult to answer – Asad Saeeduddin Jan 4 '13 at 3:57
No, I am asking for 'common dangers' if there are none then that would be a sufficient answer. Unforeseen complications, includes commmon, uncommon and yet undiscovered problems. They are not 'basically' the same. – eigen_enthused Jan 4 '13 at 4:02
@CaseyJamesBasichis I was actually quoting your exact words on the "unforeseen complications" bit. "common dangers" would imply that this is a common scenario, which it is not. Most people have not had to implement what you are describing. This means that unless we can see the nuts and bolts of what you are doing, we can't foresee the problems you might face. I'm sure "From what you've described, I can foresee no problems" isn't a particularly helpful answer to you, which is why we are asking for specifics. – Asad Saeeduddin Jan 4 '13 at 4:30
Ahh, yes you're right. I keep changing the text to appease the rules. Common dangers is what was originally written - as per first comment. I will change it back. "I foresee no problem's" is highly valuable, just as if I described a similarly abstract scenario that violated all the normal forms, it would be possible to answer as such with out seeing the exact data, schema, input and output. My question is abstract but not vague, the details that can be given have been and the answer, that you've assumed I don't want would be fine if its the truth. – eigen_enthused Jan 4 '13 at 4:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .