How should we deal with inherently open-ended fishing-for-ideas questions?

Question

We've had a number of questions lately that, in my opinion, skirt the rules. They're not specific (per the new Help Center, THANKS! for that BTW).

Examples are:

• Anti-Psychic Countermeasures
• What would a medieval war against an air-borne race look like?
• How would you explain the process of reverie in elves?
• How would I gain energy from a rotating planet?

These are just a few. Generally, this isn't a big problem because when you work through the question proper there's enough data to not quite be so open-ended, but generally speaking, they're all open-ended fishing-for-ideas questions. Some are much worse than others.

In some cases, the questions appear very much to be high concept questions. In other cases, the question is fundamentally unanswerable without something: be it more data or changes in what the author is asking for.

Question: What should be our default policy concerning open-ended fishing-for-ideas questions?

Note that one of the biggest problems with these questions is that they're almost always primarily opinion-based, both from the SE point of view and our own.

Answer 1

Distinguish between those that should be closed and those that shouldn't

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with fishing for ideas. I have this cool idea X (elves do reverie, or generating energy from a fast spinning planet), but I don't know how to make it realistic. Give me some advice!

I like those questions they spawn creativity, which is the best part of this site. Boring old math answers and snarky joke answers are cool and all, but coming up with a justifiable but off-the-wall idea is the best.

Obviously, if the question asks you to write a story, then you close as 'story based.' If the question doesn't have any good criteria for selection, then it is opinion based. But I didn't vote to close any of those linked questions (but I'm a softie on close votes). I think they are all good and could potentially get nice answers.

EDIT: I changed my mind on the psychic question after re-reading it and voted to close, but the rest are still good.

Answer 2

I'm probably a repeat offender on this and kinda see world-building in general as this. We typically have one of 2 stances when we ask a real question:

• I have all the Legos. How should I put them together?
• I'm building something. What Lego do I need to fill this hole?

And those are rather open-ended and opinion-based thoughts usually. Granted, not everything fits those two questions, and you can always reword a question enough that it fits the site policy. But generally I think there's a good measuring stick:

• How snarkily can I answer the question while getting away with it?

For anti-psychic if they gave no extra info I could say "Wear tinfoil hats" For something like "Harness Planetary Energy" there's an actual limited list if you include hard-science tag. If you don't then more info may be required.

Most importantly:

Sometimes a question is open-ended without context. Sometimes it's completely locked down with context. But as a resource the site does better from easily digestible questions regardless of how open-ended. Being able to see that a question is related to why you came there at a glance is nice. Especially if the title isn't spot-on to the minutia of the question context. The abundance of opinion based answers in a TOO broad question will still have good answers bubble to the top with the voting system. It'll attract low-quality too. Which is one of the reasons I think these kind of answers get closed? Lack of critical thinking added to sheer volume?

....Which wraps back to the Snark Test. If I give you a question locked down entirely with context and tons of detail: a) I might not even be able to be snarky b) By imagining a snarky response I just might be ashamed of myself for walking over someone's effort. If I can feel absolutely certain I can get away with a snarky response... then maybe it isn't worth my effort to even respond. Just vote close and move on. At the most maybe help them improve.

While I'm here responding to comments, I'm going to preemptively defend my stance on the opinion-based potentially being a resource bit: If all questions were meant to be useful only in the specific context of the OP, then we'd be a forum. Nobody would ever need to see an answer again besides the OP. We're a resource, having some room for opinion or varied answers is a must. Not because it is in general required for Q&A format but because we're a site related to creativity. If our sets of answers are tailored too fundamentally to specific Qs then general answers aren't as clearly separated (assume they exist) for notice/consumption by an external visitor.

There is a limit to generalization as far as the site is concerned. Like I stated in my comments though, while you can measure this (I use my Snark Test) a check for a good Q isn't necessarily a check for a redeemable Q.

Ex: The "Creating a realistic world map" series by Tim B is more open-ended than most posts but has a clear use, you can't really be snarky. If he tried to generalize it all into one post it would've been easier to be snarky....

However while "How do I make a world" wouldn't have been as golden it's essentially the same as "Creating a realistic world map: Steps?" (yes "realistic" is a big context difference, but throw me that bone, that's something we fight in the comments all the time... or at least we used to >_>), an answer of "Landmass, Weather, Erosion, etc." could have been potentially useful and if it hit points most people wouldn't think about right away (Heat Map, etc.) then it probably would've been a redeeming answer for provoking thought.

Still voting to close but the reason might be instead of "too broad"... maybe it's become in a way "attracting low-quality" because all that could be said has been.

Alternatively, maybe there's a pretty amazing step-based way of doing unrealistic world maps. I would never be bold enough to ask "Creating a fantasy world map", it seems too open-ended. I don't really know, I haven't thought enough on it, but if an answer managed to convince me of a process I would be pleased. Granted we would still prefer these being 2 separate questions... but that's maybe a different meta.

Then again, maybe there is no redeeming answer. Then it's business as usual: Snark Test, flag.

Answer 3

What should be our default policy concerning open-ended fishing-for-ideas questions?

Via comment, inform the OP, and ask for clarifications to narrow down the answers. If they are not forthcoming, flag the question or VTC. Or do those in reverse order.

To me it depends on the idea they are fishing for. If it is a whole plot-generating idea dealing with a central story element, I consider that the wrong kind of fishing. If they are trying to patch a hole in their story, I am okay with providing a creative element to help do that.

For examples of the later, I have talked about generating oxygen on a planet without plants; or how ancient humans might have produced a stable matriarchy, or ways an all female alien species might reproduce with mixed DNA. Those are questions about how to make a world work; and that kind of fishing for engineering ideas is what we are here to answer. e.g. I need an idea for why my lush farmland has a sharp line border on barren desert.

But to me those are not creative elements directly related to the plot, they are just patches needed to make the setting or circumstances sound more plausible. They are an assist that probably would not even be mentioned more than once.

On the other hand, big questions that are basically "give me a plot" or "What's my finale" are not something I answer; and I may VTC.

Obviously, world building strongly influences story building, that's why it is important. So my advice is to look at the balance between these; and if too much of the answer is about the characters, plots, events in the story then I consider it off-topic here.

Answer 4

These questions are directly discouraged by the terms of the site, they should by the rules be closed as either "too-broad" or "primarily opinion based" but there's a number of issues with these questions that mean they A. keep occurring and B. don't get closed when they should be:

• mainly these questions don't get closed as fast as they should because they grab people's attention in a way that means a lot of people, and I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone, answer them instead of voting to close them immediately the way they should. I often see question I've answered on the review queue and, looking at them in that, different, light realise that I shouldn't have done that but too late.

They keep happening because:

1. a lot of the OPs of these questions don't realise what they've done and/or don't see the question as fishing/idea generation. For example I asked what I thought was a simple question about R&D but it turns out there's actually a science that people do doctorates in that attempt, and fail, to answer said question. I knew there was a science, what I didn't realise was that said science actually attempted to cover my question.

2. if an OP doesn't see any answers at all to the issue they're asking about then while the question is absolutely idea generation it doesn't look like it to the OP, they're looking for a single answer to a question they feel may have none at all not the broad array of ideas they are suddenly offered.

3. some people don't care how many times you tell them not to they keep the off colour coming anyway.

So yes these questions are a problem and yes they are going to keep happening, the default policy to date, as I understand it and have seen it operating, is to close them either as "too-broad" or as "primarily opinion based" depending where exactly the community feels they lie, since most can be seen as both. I think this is the appropriate response.

We might improve our outcomes if we remember to give people direct and particular feedback about individual questions, that point out exactly where/why a question is getting a close vote, as well as and/or instead of the stock comments from review but otherwise I don't think there are any real changes to be made.

Answer 5

As long as there is enough context or data, and that the open-minded part is not too broad, I think these question are valid. These question often try to solve the "I want this to happen in my story, how can I justify it". It helps a lot when you try to write a story and building the world around it.

Answer 6

Leave them alone.

Most of these questions have enough boundaries built into the question itself to give comprehensible answers. We're far too quick to close posts that can be fruitful for the posters, because they are largely speculative.

The problem is two-fold:

The "Use a metric" rule is shoddy, at best. It assumes there's some sort of objective judgement by which an answer can always be deemed better, even if both meet the needs of the poster.

Secondly, it's unevenly/unfairly applied. One of the answers above seems to be about arbitrarily closing some while leaving others open, when the fact is that none of them adhere to the rules. If we're being sticklers, then all of these would be shut down, and doing so would just heighten the problematic elements of the culture here.

If a question can generate useful answers for the poster: leave it alone. If people don't like the question, or don't feel that they can properly answer it, they won't. And/or they can help the OP tighten up what they are trying to ask so that the feedback they receive is the most useful it can be. I can't see how stepping in and nuking all these threads adds anything of value to WB.SE.