Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

Return to Answer

Fixed typo
Source Link
Secespitus
Secespitus
  • 17.8k
  • 2
  • 34
  • 63

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slittingsplitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientifically semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientifically semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by splitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientifically semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Secespitus
Secespitus
  • 17.8k
  • 2
  • 34
  • 63

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientificlyscientifically semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientificly semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientifically semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.

Source Link
Secespitus
Secespitus
  • 17.8k
  • 2
  • 34
  • 63

Yes, the broad impact is the deciding factor, not the broad cause

The premise of the question can be as elaborate as the author is willing to spend time on the question. It doesn't matter. The problem is when answers are expected to write whole books to completely answer the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have one answer as the best answer. That doesn't mean that we can't have multiple valid answers, but if you are only able to answer one aspect of a question then your answer can't be expected to be valid.

To cite the help center:

Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.

Having lists of questions that are very closely related, for example by slitting it up into economics, culture, religion, ..., is perfectly fine and reasonable. We have a lot of series on the site and that's okay. Each question has to stand on its own, every answer has to answer the complete question and answers should be comparable to one another so that you could theoretically find out somewhat objectively which the best answer is, even if there are lots of valid answers. That's the price we pay for having this site on the StackExchange network.

If you are afraid of duplicates you can simply change the title of your series. Take a look at the Anatomically Correct Series where each title has a simple template and includes the specific difference compared with other questions in this series. Or look at Creating a scientificly semi-valid super-soldier, where each question states what the specific topic is about and the older questions are linked at the top for reference and to make it easier to see what is different about this one. A perfect example of how you should go about asking a very broad question.

The change that a question is about is irrelevant to judging whether the question is "Too Broad" - the implications of the change are what makes a question "Too Broad" as we can't expect everyone to write a whole book for the querent and we don't want lots of low-quality half-a-sentence answers that "just want to add a point to what has already been said by others". That's the extreme, but it's what would happen if we allowed people to post answers that only answer half the question. The goal of StackExchange is to have a repository of questions and an answer (or multiple approaches with one somewhat objectively best one) to that question. Not a long thread of partial answers.