Since when is spoonfeeding not allowed? [closed]

Question

I've probably missed some great debates in here, but I want a status report. What has happened with our rules over the past half a year in here?

Spoonfeeding was always encouraged in here, as far as I can remember. We have always encouraged those who downvote to provide a proper reason for doing so. As well as explaining how to fix your post, to make it more valid, instead of closing it right away.

I also personally tried as much as I could, to guide less-experienced users towards their true wishes. Because they have a lack of experience, because they don't know what technology exists out there (which is actually really hard to find). They ask to the best of their abilities, and we, experienced people, help them to understand what they want, and maybe show better solutions.

Now I came to Server Fault and posted a few questions. One was taken down, because it's "not a real question" and a moderator provided a link to the documentation of Red Hat Linux. I've read this documentation and couldn't even find where the solution to my problem would be included. But the question was already closed, so I had to go to IRC, and ask people there.

A second question was closed because it's "not constructive", and the user who voted for closing it said: Please go to that product board and ask there, because nobody has expertise in the topic (although it's not off-topic at all).

REALLY? I MEAN SERIOUSLY? So why are we in here?

Is it not allowed to ask anything in here before you read 1000 pages of documentation regarding your software you have problems with? What are we allowed to ask and what not?

So let's go and close all the topics where answers can be found in manuals, bugs can be found in issue trackers, etc. But then what? We'll be solving issues which never happened to anybody before? Or let's maybe even close the topics in Stack Overflow where you haven't read the source code of your used software?

Seriously guys, what has happened in here? Am I not allowed to ask simple questions (which has not been asked previously on the site) and should I be kicked off with some link to the documentation? Is this really a valid way to proceed?

The best thing about this community was spoonfeeding, so people who had a hard time on resolving issues could get support from those for whom this is not that hard, and who have experience with those issues and can answer in seconds.

What happened to me recently is basically the same as: Throwing me into the water and watching me drown, instead of teaching me how to swim. Even if it makes me a better swimmer, do you really think this is the way to go?

Answer 1

Anywhere on Stack Exchange, research is essential. Put yourself in the boots of someone who's mainly here cause he enjoys answering interesting questions.

I see a horribly simple question I could probably answer when I'm sick, high as a kite flu medication, and am probably drooling. I'm actually fine. I'm looking at the question and wondering why the hell the guy didn't google the damned thing as I do to get a good answer.

Or not. (I sometimes do, but that's when it's something I realise other people will struggle with, and go beyond the basic question).

OR I can find good, hard questions and actually learn stuff. We're NOT your infinite monkeys on the keyboards of research. Stack Exchange's a really nice place when you're actually stuck.

Server Fault in particular has the thorny issue of trying to retain folk who want to keep the place for system administrators of a certain skill level - and that sometimes means not catering to folk who can't do the basics. If it's on a man page, it wouldn't hurt to try it, then report back with what went wrong. You'd know this if you'd actually gotten familiar with the site culture.

Answer 2

For what it's worth, this "spoon feeding" you want was never encouraged or welcome on SF. As we see professional system/network administrators as our only audience, it shouldn't be necessary anyway.

As for the questions:

• The first you asked was about an obscure system where I pointed you to a better place to ask your original question, considering the fact that the original form of the question amounts to either "google this for me" or a learning material question, both off-topic on SF. You since rephrased this question and it got reopened. So, what is your problem here?

• I wouldn't necessarily have closed the second question, as the RHEL manpage (cited from a Scientific Linux 6.4 install) is not terrible obvious with the relevant part:

  -p, --password PASSWORD
         The encrypted password, as returned by crypt(3). The default is to 
         disable the password.
  

  however, the link Michael Hampton gave you was spot on and included the necessary information. If you are to layz to read it, that is entirely your fault and I think to expect anything more from a site where people answer questions for free, in their own time, is entirely inappropriate.

From a more general perspective, if you made the same experience that you required too detailed instructions on three sites and people complained about it, couldn't it be that your expectations are unrealistic? I can't speak for SO or SU, but if you expect that people explain every single concept, phrase or term, ServerFault is not the site for you. Our goal is to help you help yourself, not to do your work for you.

You know, the funny thing is that you chose Sherlock Holmes as your avatar, the quintessential detective able to make great discoveries from the smallest observations. Frankly, you present yourself as the exact opposite.

Answer 3

The context of spoonfeeding as used here is different from the one mentioned in this comment.

We encourage people to leave comments helping a user get a closed question reopened or a bad question fixed. This sort of spoonfeeding is good.

However, Stack Exchange will not do all your work for you. If you want to be spoonfed in this manner. Michael Hampton's comment is correct. SO/SF are not here to teach you how to read documentation. They are here to solve specific problems.