Return to Answer

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?

"Automatically delete" is a bad idea. It's a doubly bad idea to delete content that the majority of voters find useful.

Let's work through a test case:

1. User taras.roshko asked a question about the .NET source code. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:13)
2. User Marc Gravell♦ commented with an answer to the implied programming question. (Aug 30 '11 at 10:21)
3. User casperOne♦ commented that the actual question could not be answered as only the .NET developers have access to the information. (Aug 30 '11 at 13:44)
4. The question was "closed as not constructive by casperOne♦, Will♦ Aug 30 '11 at 14:38"

Therefore the total time the question had to collect answers was 4 hours and 25 minutes. If Marc had answered instead of commented (not that he should have) the question would be safe. But since nobody decided to provide feedback in the form of an answer, this question would be deleted under the proposal.

What the proposal must show is that the internet would be a better place without this particular question than with it. And the evidence shows that 13 people thought the question was good and nobody thought it was bad—just not answerable at the moment. In my opinion, closed with no answers is the perfect end state for this question and it currently provides a small, but not valueless artifact for future Googlers.

As programmers, we don't like unanswerable questions. But the reality is that there are many questions that are legitimately without answer. These are not really good fit for the sort of site that StackExchange hosts. An answer form Joe Programmer to the above question will be speculative rather than authoritative. That's why it makes perfect sense to close these questions. Why encourage people to make guesses?

But not being a good fit for the site does not mean that a question ought to be deleted. In fact the site benefits by communicating to users:

1. That a question will not likely be answered on the site, and
2. Why the question was closed.

At least this way there's a chance that askers of duplicate questions will avoid asking.

On Stack Overflow, at least, many of the questions really ought to be migrated to where they might get answers or at least the right audience. Some questions in Conrad's query ought to be migrated to Super User, Server Fault, TeX.SE, etc.

Finally, the proposal does not mesh well with what I understand is the current protocol for deletion. This is not a technical problem, but a social one. A technical solution at best will clear the way toward a true social solution.

In this case, automatic deletion merely hides or delays the problem. Is that really the way we want to proceed in the future? Do we need to make the same mistakes again in order to learn from them?