This question already has an answer here:
- How should you respond to “Give me a fish” / RTFM questions? 13 answers
- Embrace the non-Googlers 13 answers
Some questions on Stack Overflow could be answered with a minimal amount of leg-work and research by the poster. The questions are either trivial, such as "How do I print a number as hex instead of decimal?" or are extensively covered by tutorials and articles both on Stack Overflow and the web at large ("How do I write a simple template in C++?"), or both.
As we all know, LMGTFY answers are banned on Stack Exchange. There are some very good reasons for that which are well-covered in the discussions here on Meta.
Many of these questions, despite being so easy that the poster should have found the answers with 5 seconds of searching, do have good answers here, and recurring questions can easily be marked as duplicates. This seems perfectly appropriate where possible. The more general questions ("How do I learn C?") can be closed as Too Broad.
But I feel like there is a gap between "Duplicate" and "Too Broad" that is not covered by any existing close reason. Sometimes the question is specific, extensively covered by outside material, and yet not covered on Stack Overflow. I really miss the old "demonstrate a minimal understanding" close reason, which partially covered this gap.
Now that it's gone, though, what should we do with questions like this? Questions where there's no exact match on SO, but where you can find an answer yourself in 5 seconds by searching Google?
If the question doesn't have an exact match, should we just answer it anyway -- in the spirit of "building a knowledge base" -- even if that basically means quoting stuff from reference material that could be found in 5 seconds of Googling? Or is there perhaps room for a new close reason to cover this kind of thing? How much hand-holding do we want Stack Overflow's body of work to do?