Recently, a guideline to demonstrate a "minimal understanding of the problem being solved" was made mandatory on Stack Overflow:
"Questions must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Tell us what you've tried to do, why it didn't work, and how it should work. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist."
Despite this rule, I've found many popular questions that have remained open, even though they don't demonstrate an attempt to solve a problem before asking for its solution:
How to modify existing, unpushed commits?
What is the difference between 'git pull' and 'git fetch'?
What is a plain English explanation of "Big O" notation?
How to resolve merge conflicts in Git?
Algorithm to find the most common substrings in a string
When posting questions, I sometimes follow the example that has been set by these favorably-reviewed (but not well-researched) questions, based on the assumption that it is acceptable to ask questions like these under some circumstances. Is it now forbidden to ask questions similar to these, despite the almost entirely favorable reviews that these questions have earned?