5 ms·

It's justified. The site is used for problem solving. Here the problem isn't the asker's, it can't be meaningfully solved by anyone on the site, and it is a ma

by Tobu 15y ago

It's justified. The site is used for problem solving. Here the problem isn't the asker's, it can't be meaningfully solved by anyone on the site, and it is a matter of opinion whether any answer comes closer to solving it, or that there is a problem at all.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago
re: "The site is used for problem solving." So says YOU. What's so inherently wrong with letting the people decide? Obviously, a few hundred people found that post quite relevant to the website's topic, helpful, and interesting. What gives Casper the right to destroy hundreds of people's discussion on a topic that they all deem relevant. The "vote" on that action was approximately 300 to 1. That 1 vote of no confidence by Casper counts more than everybody's for some reason. That is what really gets me.
- Tobu 15y ago
  So says the sites' FAQ: > You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page. The ability to decide what Stack Overflow is and isn't is what makes it a community, and not a jumble like Yahoo Answers. And the specifics of closing questions don't have the violence of Wikipedia deletions. I don't approve of deleting user-contributed content, especially when it takes effort to build; closing on SO removes linking to the question, adds a little explanatory blurb, and diverts new attention away from the question. It doesn't destroy user contributions.
  - GigabyteCoin 15y ago
    Now you (and the site's rules) are just getting pedantic. What's the legal definition of a "Chatty, open-ended question" or a "practicable, answerable question"? No question is un-answerable or impracticable imho. Those are some very ridiculous requirements if you ask me, and 300 odd other people who voted in favor of this question and it's answers. P.S. in the midst of all this argument... CasperOne has added and removed his vote of no confidence for this question. It is now "closed as not constructive by Tim Cooper, lwburk, Tobu, 一二三, Graviton 8 hours ago". So which is it then?
- chc 15y ago
  Not everything is subjective. Stack Overflow has a stated purpose, and that purpose is not "whatever the most people feel like disussing." The Internet has proven that cats and politics will win that one every time.
  - GigabyteCoin 15y ago
    The topic in question is not so far removed from the site's purpose to deem that it's "whatever the most people feel like discussing". You are correct in that somebody must draw some kind of line somewhere in the sand... but I believe that Somebody jumped the gun on this one, as they have on many of my questions to similar websites in the past. I think it's more of an elitist thing. "I know the exact rules better than you know the exact rules." When a user needs to know and abide by every rule of every website on the net, the internet is immediately less interesting.
    - chc 15y ago
      You referred to the number of votes the post got. I was saying that's a red herring. Given a choice between a great question about the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications of a feature in Clojure 1.4 and a picture of a cat in front of a computer, several orders of magnitude more people would vote for the cat than the programming question. This is why getting a lot of votes doesn't really prove relevance. As for "I know the exact rules better than you know the exact rules": I don't see that at all. The rules are pretty simple. Here's a summary — if you follow it, you will not get your question locked: 1. Is it about programming? 2. Is it possible to give an objectively correct answer? 3. Is it stated politely? In the particular case of this question, it doesn't even try to follow #2. It's an interesting question, I agree, but there's no right answer, so it's not a good Stack Overflow question. S:N ratio is extremely important on a site like Stack Overflow (because the people who answer questions well lose interest fast when they can't find good questions to answer, and vice-versa), so it is important to make sure that the site sticks closely to its purpose. Incidentally, this isn't true of Wikipedia. Some of its rules make the site better, but a lot of the rules exist more for their own sake than because not following them would ruin the site (e.g. an article that's just descriptions of Pokemon episodes is pretty useless, but it doesn't make the article on Afghanistan less useful).

by Tobu 15y ago

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

re: "The site is used for problem solving." So says YOU. What's so inherently wrong with letting the people decide? Obviously, a few hundred people found that post quite relevant to the website's topic, helpful, and interesting. What gives Casper the right to destroy hundreds of people's discussion on a topic that they all deem relevant. The "vote" on that action was approximately 300 to 1. That 1 vote of no confidence by Casper counts more than everybody's for some reason. That is what really gets me.

Tobu 15y ago
So says the sites' FAQ: > You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page. The ability to decide what Stack Overflow is and isn't is what makes it a community, and not a jumble like Yahoo Answers. And the specifics of closing questions don't have the violence of Wikipedia deletions. I don't approve of deleting user-contributed content, especially when it takes effort to build; closing on SO removes linking to the question, adds a little explanatory blurb, and diverts new attention away from the question. It doesn't destroy user contributions.
- GigabyteCoin 15y ago
  Now you (and the site's rules) are just getting pedantic. What's the legal definition of a "Chatty, open-ended question" or a "practicable, answerable question"? No question is un-answerable or impracticable imho. Those are some very ridiculous requirements if you ask me, and 300 odd other people who voted in favor of this question and it's answers. P.S. in the midst of all this argument... CasperOne has added and removed his vote of no confidence for this question. It is now "closed as not constructive by Tim Cooper, lwburk, Tobu, 一二三, Graviton 8 hours ago". So which is it then?
chc 15y ago
Not everything is subjective. Stack Overflow has a stated purpose, and that purpose is not "whatever the most people feel like disussing." The Internet has proven that cats and politics will win that one every time.
- GigabyteCoin 15y ago
  The topic in question is not so far removed from the site's purpose to deem that it's "whatever the most people feel like discussing". You are correct in that somebody must draw some kind of line somewhere in the sand... but I believe that Somebody jumped the gun on this one, as they have on many of my questions to similar websites in the past. I think it's more of an elitist thing. "I know the exact rules better than you know the exact rules." When a user needs to know and abide by every rule of every website on the net, the internet is immediately less interesting.
  - chc 15y ago
    You referred to the number of votes the post got. I was saying that's a red herring. Given a choice between a great question about the theoretical underpinnings and practical applications of a feature in Clojure 1.4 and a picture of a cat in front of a computer, several orders of magnitude more people would vote for the cat than the programming question. This is why getting a lot of votes doesn't really prove relevance. As for "I know the exact rules better than you know the exact rules": I don't see that at all. The rules are pretty simple. Here's a summary — if you follow it, you will not get your question locked: 1. Is it about programming? 2. Is it possible to give an objectively correct answer? 3. Is it stated politely? In the particular case of this question, it doesn't even try to follow #2. It's an interesting question, I agree, but there's no right answer, so it's not a good Stack Overflow question. S:N ratio is extremely important on a site like Stack Overflow (because the people who answer questions well lose interest fast when they can't find good questions to answer, and vice-versa), so it is important to make sure that the site sticks closely to its purpose. Incidentally, this isn't true of Wikipedia. Some of its rules make the site better, but a lot of the rules exist more for their own sake than because not following them would ruin the site (e.g. an article that's just descriptions of Pokemon episodes is pretty useless, but it doesn't make the article on Afghanistan less useful).