2
$\begingroup$

As an example I'll use one of my own questions but there is no need to read more than its title to understand my question here.

My question was Greenhouse Planet Terraforming - Will a balloon jacket self-stabilise?

It looks as though the answer is going to be No. However someone has mentioned an apparent flaw in my plan that I believe I can exploit to make my scenario work.

When writing my new question, I will obviously state the new factor and say how it might overcome previous objections.

Question

How much of the original should I restate?

(a) None - just give the link back to my old question and add the new factor (stating why it helps).

(b) Summarise the old question in bullet form and add the new factor.

(c) Repeat the old question word-for-word and add the new factor to the list.

(c) Something else.


EDIT

To make it more concrete: In my particular case the original idea was that the balloon should self-stabilise equidistant from the planet's surface. An objection was that the solar wind would displace it. I now want to know if I can utilise the solar wind as a stabilising factor - perhaps by having it pin the balloon to the surface on one side rather than be equidistant. (Details still fuzzy)

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

My general opinion is that each question should stand on its own.

In other words, the new question should be complete enough that one does not need to refer to other questions in order to answer it. (On the flip side, it may be that referring to existing questions is a good way to show research effort.)

That said, in this case it sounds like you are asking a new question that is very similar to an existing question.

In that case, you want to make the differences compared to the previous question very clear, to avoid the new one being closed as a duplicate of the old one.

How you do that is really up to you. However, I would strongly advice against making it seem like something has just been tacked on at the end and/or as an afterthought. Since this is something that influences answers, it should also influence the question. That being the case, it probably deserves a more significant edit to the question that just one more bullet point in a list.

You certainly can use the previous variant of the question as a base, but you should probably make sure to incorporate whatever element you are changing into the entire question. Don't expect readers to do a blink test just to see what the differences are.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks - To make it more concrete: In my particular case the original idea was that the balloon should self-stabilise equidistant from the planet's surface. An objection was that the solar wind would displace it. I now want to know if I can utilise the solar wind as a stabilising factor - perhaps by having it pin the balloon to the surface on one side. (Details still fuzzy) $\endgroup$ – chasly from UK Nov 28 '18 at 11:09
1
$\begingroup$

In my opinion, this is the site's gold standard for a follow-up question:

The original: The land grows evil and corrupted ... but why?

The followup, from a different user: Can a radioactive moon affect life on a planet?

Both highly rated, both got very good answers. Hopefully that provides an example of how to do it well.

Referring to your bullet points, I'd say this follows (c); it restates something given in an answer, in a block quote, and with a link, then adds further questions about that.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .