Timeline for Update the Don't Ask page to prevent barely researched questions (NARQing the turtle)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 11:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://blog.stackoverflow.com with https://blog.stackoverflow.com
|
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 9:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackoverflow.com/ with https://meta.stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 25, 2013 at 17:16 | comment | added | jball | Don't know if it's worth a bump, but given that even recent answers on meta are essentially unchallenged with this position but there are users that aren't even aware of the policy, I still think some needs to be made to remedy the disconnect. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 21:16 | answer | added | LauraStaffMod | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 16:43 | comment | added | jball | @psubsee2003 I agree with that, think it clarifies the situations that are being encountered by well intentioned questioners better. I've updated the post with both your addition and a focus on research being the key idea. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 16:41 | history | edited | jball | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 176 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:32 | history | rollback | Undo |
Rollback to Revision 2
|
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:26 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | But I think you will get more support for this idea if you get away from the "simple question" stance and focus more on "doing your research first" | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:24 | history | edited | psubsee2003 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 96 characters in body
|
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:23 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @jball ok, I am retracting my downvote (have to edit to do that though) and I'll apologize. I thought that "doing basic research" was addressed in the help center in some manner. There does need to be something to tell someone that they should be doing some sort of research first. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:17 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @jball not trying to be hostile, but I was trying to refute the idea that "too simple" needs to be addressed in the help center. This idea has been discussed plenty of times and the answer is always the same.... questions are not closed because they are too simple. They are closed because the OP failed to do basic research. You have to come up with a better example than something where googling the exact title gives 2 exact duplicates. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:13 | comment | added | jball | @psubsee2003 at this point you are being hostile through pedantry. I never said "too simple" was a close reason, in fact I put NARQ in the title. I don't know if you intend the second sentence of your comment as a claim that no question is too simple for SO? | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:10 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | First, it was closed as NARQ, not "too simple" (especially since too simple is not a close reason). I would have closed it as a duplicate. It is an easy to find duplicate since googling the exact title finds 2 other SO questions that answer this question. | |
| Jun 19, 2013 at 0:04 | comment | added | jball | Do I need to post examples of current questions closed as being too simple to prove this has going on? I gathered from the links I posted in the original question and my first comment that 1) this is a known thing, and 2) that it is an accepted thing. All I'm asking is to warn someone reading in the help center about it. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:39 | comment | added | psubsee2003 | @jball I think the quality of the question by far outweighs the complexity of the question. A simple question (that is not a duplicate, or at least an easy to find duplicate) that is written well will far very well and does not need to be discouraged. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:30 | comment | added | jball | @Benjamin Gruenbaum I was of that philosophy as well and used to use the LOGO turtle question by Joel to defend those types of questions, but they are rapidly closed these days. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:29 | comment | added | Benjamin Gruenbaum | Also, even if an answer is easily found, if it's not found in StackOverflow it's still benefits the site if the user asks it. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:29 | comment | added | jball | Added a clarifying line to the question, "Questions for which the answer can be easily found" is what I intended to refer to by "simple questions". | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:27 | history | edited | jball | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 199 characters in body
|
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:25 | comment | added | user206222 | Yes and no. Questions for which the answer can be easily found are not desired. Questions which are simple, but for which there is not a readily available answer, are okay. There is significant overlap between those two regions, but that is simply a correlation. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:22 | comment | added | jball | If it's not out an out incorrect, can you characterize the slight flaw better? | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:22 | comment | added | jball | Given the blog post and what I see on other feature requests, questions and answers, I thought there was a general consensus that a certian level of simple question was undesired. Is that incorrect? | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:12 | comment | added | user206222 | I think your extrapolation that simple questions are not desired is slightly flawed. | |
| Jun 18, 2013 at 23:06 | history | asked | jball | CC BY-SA 3.0 |