Timeline for How should we deal with "vexatious questions?"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2023 at 4:59 | comment | added | JamieB | This is a good example of "something non-vexatious being unrightfully labeled as vexatious". Even worse, though, is when they ask 3 questions that actually have a single, unified answer, but we actually berate them, close the question, and demand they create separate questions. I bet if we delved into specific examples, we could frequently trace it back to the vexatious asker literally doing what they were told to do in their original vote-closed question. The rule book knockers do occasionally shoot themselves in the foot here, and we should, on occasion, acknowledge that reality. | |
| Jun 16, 2023 at 1:47 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) have been asked slightly differently as we've seen. Questions aren't closed on the basis of graphs or whatever. These I voted to close because they are functionally identical questions. Each one is a repeat of the first question in form, matter, result and predictive power. | |
| Jun 16, 2023 at 1:36 | comment | added | elemtilas | Since you like anatomy, let's change the question. Let's say you asked "so, endoscopes are really cool for seeing inside people; poke a hole just here and stick it in, will this work for a lizard?" Come back a couple years later and ask "will this work for a bird?" Six months after that and ask about a fish. Do you see where this is going? The first question was really useful. It's pretty clear that utility can be extrapolated across creature types with similar anatomy. Further questions really aren't needed because a) the same extrapolation works and b) the original question could (cont) | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 7:44 | comment | added | JBH | ... of building worlds. And one measure of either our failure to teach that lesson or the user's failure to learn it, is the presence of vexatious questions. | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 7:43 | comment | added | JBH | ... you'd know if you researched corsets. Remember, the down vote roll-over states, "this question does not show any research effort…." BTW, please understand that this Meta post is not just about you. You simply had the misfortune of being the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. A fair number of users have asked vexatious questions over the years. As mentioned, the most notorious involved the ACS. You've asked a fair number of good and really interesting questions - and that's appreciated. But part of our goal is to help people learn the process ... (*Continued*) | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 7:41 | comment | added | JBH | I can't but disagree with your answer. Yes, those similar questions have different answers, but in every case you failed to do the necessary research that would avoid the need to ask over and over. You're expecting us to educate you and you learn nothing from previous responses/comments (which includes the process of finding an answer). Your corset question is an excellent example. The differences in creatures is irrelevant because corsets require hips and if your creatures don't have them they can't wear them - which ... (*Continued*) | |
| Jun 15, 2023 at 3:43 | comment | added | sphennings | It would be one thing if effort was made to clearly indicate how each question builds off previous ones, if effort was made to show the consideration for existing asks and why a new question is warranted. However instead of putting in effort to be a good member of this site we instead get arguments that hinge on tiny semantic differences. That in itself is vexatious. You've been told that these questions are inappropriate and unwelcome. You've been told how to ask better questions. If you want to actually act in good faith learn and change don't repeat disruptive behavior. | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 21:56 | comment | added | Ichthys King | @elemtilas Only if you define 'similar' in this context as meaning 'having some of the same edges when the overall macroscopic structure reduced to a discrete-mathematical graph'. And if you do define it that way, you have no grounds to close questions just for having what you call 'similar' points of discussion | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 21:20 | comment | added | elemtilas | That's the thing about Earth animals --- evolution. They've all got very similar anatomy indeed. More so when you get into anthropomorphic ones! | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 20:14 | comment | added | Ichthys King | @elemtilas (all of which have very similar anaotomy) If you really think birds, lizard, frogs, and fish have 'very similar anatomy', then you have no business doing anything regarding questions upon these creatures | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 12:09 | comment | added | Tortliena - inactive | @BMF It is important because similar questions with -most importantly- similar answers will get closed as duplicates. Here same and similar has the... same meaning for this purpose, because we can't deny a duplicate just because a word or two changed. That's most likely not what Ichtys King wanted to tell, but it's their concluding sentence, and likely a reason some were quicker than usual to downvote them. | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 10:00 | comment | added | BMF | I think this answer raises a valid point. Querents may not know the subjects they're asking about, which leads to chains of similar-looking Q's. Maybe when we spot this sort of thing we should encourage users to think about forming it and all future Q's about it under one roof. (Tort's badgering this A over semantics isn't helpful; Colloquially, similar ≠ same.) | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 3:27 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) answers from myself when I write here. I also expect you to put in a better effort when you're writing questions. You might think that writing numerous duplicate queries is not vexatious; but I'm telling you, it is. | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 3:26 | comment | added | elemtilas | (cont) questions. In stead of asking about corsets on fishmen and birdmen and catmen and dogmen and snakemen and gummymen and mantismen and turtlemen, why not just ask about the crafting of corsets in a world where all these kinds of people exist? Third, we are unfortunately no strangers to the kinds of questions you are in the unfortunate habit of asking. We do actually have a sandbox where you can get help with question formulation and writing skills! You often have a lot of good ideas, but I have to be honest in saying that your execution sucks. Let us help! I demand excellent (cont) | |
| Jun 14, 2023 at 3:22 | comment | added | elemtilas | I agree with your premise. Different problems may in fact need different solutions. First off, in order to find solutions to smelting iron and aluminium, such questions would be closed here for not being about worldbuilding. We would recommend a materials science or chemistry stack for that. Second, the application of an article of clothing from kind of person to another (all of which have very similar anaotomy) does not require a vast leap of knowledge. The original question could have been worded in such a way that you get the information you need without asking twenty (cont) | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 18:15 | comment | added | Tortliena - inactive | That being said, you shouldn't play with the choice of words rather on the content of your point : it brings no value when these words are clearly defined among the population you are targeting, and their meaning cannot change unless you explicitly redefine them "with your words". It's also no use when your "opponent" gave you a stronger interpretation leading to the conclusion you want. | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 18:15 | comment | added | Tortliena - inactive | @IchtysKing No, because we're not twins, even less true twins 🦋. Let's not talk about your assumption that brothers and sisters are even remotely similar, they more often than are not on many points. | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 17:23 | comment | added | Ichthys King | @Tortliena Are you a genetic duplicate of your siblings? | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 16:58 | comment | added | Tortliena - inactive | Same and similar are synonyms. So no, if your point is that they're similar (instead of "looking" similar), then the questions ought to be closed as duplicates (a synonym of similar, too. It's just it is a noun ^^). | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 16:45 | comment | added | Ichthys King | @Tortliena Being similar is not equivalent to being the same | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 16:41 | comment | added | Tortliena - inactive | It's funny your whole point is to prove each question is much more different in practice, then you end telling these questions "are nothing more than questions which consider similar subjects". I highly suspect you actually wanted to tell they're "similar-looking but actually different questions" ^^. | |
| Jun 13, 2023 at 11:33 | history | answered | Ichthys King | CC BY-SA 4.0 |