Sometimes. I once asked how to find the "successor" of a floating point number. I had Googled this, in several different ways in fact, looking for phrases like

Sometimes. I once asked how to find the "successor" of a floating point number. I had Googled this, in several different ways in fact, looking for phrases like "smallest floating point number strictly larger than", "next nearest IEEE 754 float" and so on, but I hadn't hit the magic combination of words that would bring up the correct answer. My question was flagged as a duplicate of this one: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10160079/how-to-find-nearest-next-previous-double-value-numeric-limitsepsilon-for-give https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10160079/how-to-find-nea... Which is a terrible way of phrasing that question. "next/previous double value?" "like numeric_limits::epsilon but for given number?" "Quite self explanatory?" I didn't - and couldn't have - found this question via Google because it doesn't actually ask the question it purports to - it makes vague allusions to it and hopes the other party will know what they mean. The page would be much improved from a better question with a precise technical description of the exact problem asked because then the page would actually contain the keywords that people would be looking for. But stack overflow, by design, believes that the One True Way to ask a question is the way it was asked first, and that everything subsequent is a duplicate and should be closed.