Timeline for What level of detail should questions have?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 25 at 17:01 | comment | added | elemtilas | 1. The Antarctic question: a good example! For me, this is a real world question. It needs worldbuilding context to connect concepts from real world climate to the fictional planet. Even if it had this context, it lacks details. But there is hope: the query was asked on the 22nd and it's only the 25th. 2. And yes, we respondents really do need to address what the querents are actually saying! I can't even count the number of times commenters have said a question is scientifically impossible or whatever, and I have to remind them that this is not about the real world, but a fictional world! | |
| Aug 25 at 16:50 | comment | added | elemtilas | I think we're in congruence: your linked question, to me at least, seems to have sufficient detail even though you call one of those details "vital". Otherwise, I think we're kind of looking at the same thing and just using different words to describe the same phenomenon. As a respondent, I just need "sufficient detail"; as a querent, you need "all the details you deem important and possibly more". Somewhere in this semantic soup, there is a level of detail, unique to each individual question, that you and I would agree is the "right level of detail"! | |
| Aug 25 at 16:42 | comment | added | elemtilas | I may be right, or I may be wrong --- but I'm never in doubt! And what I'm not in doubt about is that you make a very solid point: the level of detail is indeed quantifiable once you look at a specific question! I took Rhymehouse's query to be of the general sort, so I'd say I'm still right that, in general, there is no right quantity of detail. | |
| Aug 25 at 12:11 | history | answered | Ash | CC BY-SA 4.0 |