This could be done with some scripting:
curl -s http://english.blogoverflow.com/2015/11/why-did-i-delete-your-answer/ |
pup '.post-text' |
pandoc -f html -t markdown_strict
pup is https://github.com/ericchiang/pup.
Here's the output:
<a href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Why+did+I+delete+your+answer%3F+http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2F1PG9vyr+%23english" class="tt" title="Post to Twitter"><img src="//english.blogoverflow.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/en/twitter/tt-twitter-micro4.png" alt="Post to Twitter" class="nothumb" /></a>
Imagine someone has a question about physics, say “How can I figure out
the acceleration due to gravity?”
A physicist answers with “You can throw a bowling ball from various
floors of a multistorey building.” The physicist knows in their head the
experiment they would perform. It’s so obvious to them that they skim
over the details and say what they see to be the key points, and assume
that the person asking will figure the rest out.
The problem with this is that a non-physicist has asked the question,
and they don’t know the details that the physicist skimmed over. If they
did, they maybe wouldn’t have to ask the question. Thus, the person
asking the question is little better off than they were before asking.
Now imagine this is a single word request:
> Word for staring wide-eyed at a TV
> ==================================
>
> I saw my son staring wide-eyed at the television. His face looked so
> comical to me. Is there a word to describe such wide-eyed staring?
>
> I’d like to use it like “My son was staring at the TV last night, it
> was so funny to see.”, but I don’t like *staring* because it doesn’t
> emphasise his wide-eyed-ness.
>
> Is there a word that would better describe what I mean?
And then there is the answer:
> I think you’re looking for *goggling* .
Now you and I know that is a good word for the situation, but is it a
**helpful answer** ?
If you’re wondering, then let me tell you: it’s not. The Stack Exchange
system itself will parse it and flag it as “low quality” and it will
garner a comment from a moderator or other concerned member and then, if
no improvements are made after a week or so, it will be deleted.
Yes, the asker now has a word to fill their gap, but the answer does not
explain why *goggling* is fit for the purpose. The asker has no context
to decide if this answer is the best fit, and no way to generalize the
word to fit other situations.
Why is that important? The thing to remember is that the person who came
here looking for an answer is unlikely to already know the answer. You
don’t get many people who go around wondering “how many people know the
word *goggling* ?” (And I suspect most of those who do are crossword
designers.)
If someone doesn’t already know the answer, then the details are
important. When you suggest a word for a given context, you need to
explain why it fits the context so that when they try and use it in the
future they have a grasp on how the word works and what its connotations
are.
I know many of you might complain that they should look it up in a
dictionary. We’re a site for serious English language enthusiasts, after
all.
That is irrelevant. An answer needs to be complete.
However, to entertain that idea for a moment. Most of our users are not
serious enthusiasts. Most people come here looking for an answer and
leave with one, without ever posting anything. That is the beauty of
Stack Exchange.
That is why it is so important to leave a complete answer. With only
half an answer, people will only half understand how to use a word.
So what does a better answer look like?
> I think you’re looking for *goggling* . It’s from the verb \*to
> goggle\*, which means to stare at something with your eyes wide open
> and an amazed look on your face.
Instantly this answer is a lot more helpful. By adding a definition the
answer now gives a clear explanation why the word is suitable. Also note
that the definition isn’t from a reference. When giving the explanation
a reference can be useful, but if you have your own way to articulate
the meaning, then that is fine, too.
If you do use a reference it is essential to cite your source. If you
copy and paste without citing your source the answer will be deleted as
plagiarism. With a reference the answer would be:
> I think you’re looking for *goggling* . From
> [ODO](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/goggle) ,
> *to goggle* means:
>
> > Look with wide open eyes, typically in amazement
The important points to remember:
- You are writing an answer for someone who doesn’t know anything
about the word you’re suggesting.
- An answer needs to explain the word in order for it to be useful.
- If you are copy/pasting a definition you **must** cite where you got
it from.
<span class="filedto"> Filed under [English Stack
Exchange](//english.blogoverflow.com/category/english-se/)
[Learning](//english.blogoverflow.com/category/learning-2/) </span>
<span class="post-tag"> Tagged:
[answers](//english.blogoverflow.com/tag/answers/) ,
[main-site](//english.blogoverflow.com/tag/main-site/) , [single word
requests](//english.blogoverflow.com/tag/single-word-requests/) </span>
And the result:
Imagine someone has a question about physics, say “How can I figure out
the acceleration due to gravity?”
A physicist answers with “You can throw a bowling ball from various
floors of a multistorey building.” The physicist knows in their head the
experiment they would perform. It’s so obvious to them that they skim
over the details and say what they see to be the key points, and assume
that the person asking will figure the rest out.
The problem with this is that a non-physicist has asked the question,
and they don’t know the details that the physicist skimmed over. If they
did, they maybe wouldn’t have to ask the question. Thus, the person
asking the question is little better off than they were before asking.
Now imagine this is a single word request:
Word for staring wide-eyed at a TV
I saw my son staring wide-eyed at the television. His face looked so
comical to me. Is there a word to describe such wide-eyed staring?
I’d like to use it like “My son was staring at the TV last night, it
was so funny to see.”, but I don’t like staring because it doesn’t
emphasise his wide-eyed-ness.
Is there a word that would better describe what I mean?
And then there is the answer:
I think you’re looking for goggling .
Now you and I know that is a good word for the situation, but is it a
helpful answer ?
If you’re wondering, then let me tell you: it’s not. The Stack Exchange
system itself will parse it and flag it as “low quality” and it will
garner a comment from a moderator or other concerned member and then, if
no improvements are made after a week or so, it will be deleted.
Yes, the asker now has a word to fill their gap, but the answer does not
explain why goggling is fit for the purpose. The asker has no context
to decide if this answer is the best fit, and no way to generalize the
word to fit other situations.
Why is that important? The thing to remember is that the person who came
here looking for an answer is unlikely to already know the answer. You
don’t get many people who go around wondering “how many people know the
word goggling ?” (And I suspect most of those who do are crossword
designers.)
If someone doesn’t already know the answer, then the details are
important. When you suggest a word for a given context, you need to
explain why it fits the context so that when they try and use it in the
future they have a grasp on how the word works and what its connotations
are.
I know many of you might complain that they should look it up in a
dictionary. We’re a site for serious English language enthusiasts, after
all.
That is irrelevant. An answer needs to be complete.
However, to entertain that idea for a moment. Most of our users are not
serious enthusiasts. Most people come here looking for an answer and
leave with one, without ever posting anything. That is the beauty of
Stack Exchange.
That is why it is so important to leave a complete answer. With only
half an answer, people will only half understand how to use a word.
So what does a better answer look like?
I think you’re looking for goggling . It’s from the verb *to
goggle*, which means to stare at something with your eyes wide open
and an amazed look on your face.
Instantly this answer is a lot more helpful. By adding a definition the
answer now gives a clear explanation why the word is suitable. Also note
that the definition isn’t from a reference. When giving the explanation
a reference can be useful, but if you have your own way to articulate
the meaning, then that is fine, too.
If you do use a reference it is essential to cite your source. If you
copy and paste without citing your source the answer will be deleted as
plagiarism. With a reference the answer would be:
I think you’re looking for goggling . From
ODO ,
to goggle means:
Look with wide open eyes, typically in amazement
The important points to remember:
- You are writing an answer for someone who doesn’t know anything
about the word you’re suggesting.
- An answer needs to explain the word in order for it to be useful.
- If you are copy/pasting a definition you must cite where you got
it from.
Filed under English Stack
Exchange
Learning
Tagged:
answers ,
main-site , single word
requests
There are a few extra HTML tags which are mostly harmless, I think. It could be possible to remove them with a more judicious use of pup, perhaps.
Also, for convenience, these are the URLs to all the blog posts, best I can tell:
$ curl -s http://english.blogoverflow.com/{,page/{2,3}/} | pup '.blog-title a attr{href}'
//english.blogoverflow.com/2015/11/why-did-i-delete-your-answer/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2015/09/how-we-talk-about-future-situations/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2015/02/where-did-blizzard-come-from-the-too-long-did-not-read-version/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2015/01/good-things-from-2014/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2013/07/chat-vs-comment/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2013/06/one-language-many-voices/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/12/the-give-that-keeps-on-gifting-the-protean-nature-of-english-words-and-why-thats-a-good-thing/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/12/you-could-look-it-up/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/12/good-english-effective-english/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/11/much-ado-about-possessive-apostrophes/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/11/looking-up-a-gun-common-english-words-with-nordic-origins/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/10/prescriptivism-and-descriptivism/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/10/tw-a-pragmatic-approach/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/09/typography-striking-language-part1/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/09/writing-good-meaning-questions/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2012/01/book-review-the-adventure-of-english/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/12/getting-into-the-spirit/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/12/adspeak/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/11/the-basics-of-limerick-composition/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/11/themed-posts-wars/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/11/articles-a-vs-an/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/10/grammar-girl-interview/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/10/on-vs-about/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/10/on-proofreading-questions/
//english.blogoverflow.com/2011/09/how-to-ask-out-an-apple/
Given the URLs, it should be possible to get the markdownified version for all the posts automatically.
