1
$\begingroup$

Whenever I'm going to post something, I end up asking a lot of questions because I want to resolve as many doubts as I can..I've already canceled three/four questions because of this and I'm about to cancel one more.I wanted to ask more questions, but my post will be closed, so that's all.

$\endgroup$

4 Answers 4

2
$\begingroup$

Answer:
We really like lots of questions! Stack Exchange only allows you to ask one question per post. All you have to do is ask a well focused question and we can answer it. You may ask as many questions as you need to ask in order to address the problem. This makes the process easier for all of us.

A resposta:
Nós realmente gostamos de muitas perguntas! O Stack Exchange permite que você faça apenas uma pergunta por postagem. Tudo o que você precisa fazer é fazer uma pergunta bem direcionada e nós podemos respondê-la. Você pode fazer quantas perguntas precisar para resolver o problema. Isso torna o processo mais fácil para todos nós.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

The limit of one question per post is a design decision that is at the core of the Stack Overflow model.

When you have multiple questions in one post it makes it harder to identify and highlight the good answers. What if answer A does a fantastic job with question 1 and doesn't even attempt to answer question 2? Do you allow it because it is excellent at Q1 or delete it for not answering Q2. Since stack overflow was built around the idea of collecting good answers they decided to make it simpler for the answerers by restricting posts to 1 and only 1 question.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I think you have already been told to give a good read at our help center.

If you go there you will find a section called "What questions should I avoid asking?" which precisely answer your question here:

You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

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

Asking more questions in a single post leads to getting overlapping threads in the answers, making it more difficult if not impossible to pick a "best" one.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Eu não sei inglês, então traduzo tudo com o Google tradutor. Então eu não sei o que é uma pergunta tagarela e nem escopo. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 5:06
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Our lingua franca is English, if you want to communicate with us please use it $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 5:26
  • $\begingroup$ @wizardking if you need a translation, I suggest you run this post through Google translate it similar. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 14:44
  • $\begingroup$ @WizardKing - A chatty question is pergunta tagarela; scope is limites ou foco da questão. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Sep 28, 2021 at 16:46
-3
$\begingroup$

This is another rule that needs to be bent to make Worldbuilding a practical place.

The origin of the rule would be that asking two questions on a site like Stack Overflow yields answers that are too long. "How can I open a file in C++ and how can I then ftp it to a Linux system" is two complete questions yielding two complete and unrelated answers. They can both be useful to others and should therefore be separated.

Whereas "Hypothetically, could a swamp planet with long nights exist? Additionally, would it be possible for this same planet to have two moons and a sun?" is two questions, but both are easily answerable and the second question is closely related to the first, and makes little sense as a stand alone question (and you'd probably vote to close it for that reason).

We should be reasonable when people ask multiple questions, if they are closely related and therefore makes less sense to separate them.

Remember rules are made to keep stacks feeling friendly and productive. That thought must underlie all enforcement. Rules, especially in a stack like this, aren't meant to be a bludgeon to make the place unfriendly to new people, when their question would actually not represent a real problem.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Tip to write a stronger argumentation : Take an example where the question is good everywhere excepted the flaw you found. It will then follow the principle of charity and make a steel man looking argument. The example you took has some more issues than focus, meaning that closure was bound to happen, even if it wasn't for the two questions ^^'. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 27, 2022 at 1:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Worldbuilding is already a practical place, in the sense that people get useful answers to good questions asked here. How would this change increase the usefulness of the answers being posted now or the overall goodness of the questions allowed? Just broadening topicality for the sake of it has always caused more actual problems than it purports to solve. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Dec 28, 2022 at 23:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Nij I think the irony is I'm not asking to broaden the topics allowed. I'm asking for them to be the same as they apparently have been for years. I'm against the apparent narrowing of topics that has been occurring more recently. Worldbuilding was a fine place 5 years ago, and nothing I've seen answers the question of why some people want it narrowed down. $\endgroup$
    – JamieB
    Commented Dec 28, 2022 at 23:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People want it to be exactly as narrow as necessary to do its job. Asking five questions as five questions is perfectly allowed, and the answers can be clearly judged on how well they address the question they responded to, with every later reader finding exactly the answers they need to the question they asked. Asking five questions in one post has always been disallowed, because it makes judging answers virtually impossible on any reasonable basis, and makes the answers relatively useless for anybody who doesn't have exactly that five-part combination request. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Dec 28, 2022 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Nij I think the dividing line is "can you answer their questions in a single answer". Sometimes people phrase it as a bunch of questions but really it's one question, and they are rather clumsily trying to clarify what they mean. Their post may have 10 questions in it but it's actually a single problem, covered by a single answer. In cases like that, a VTC is silly rules-lawyering. But I fully agree that if it's really a bunch of distinct stand-alone questions then they need to parse it out. $\endgroup$
    – JamieB
    Commented Dec 28, 2022 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ Which is exactly what the policy is now. Clarifying a core question is fine, asking multiple core questions is not. Seems more like you're disagreeing with specific closures than the policy behind them, so I don't see what you're trying to effect here. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Dec 28, 2022 at 23:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Nij My leading complaint as-of-late is the inconsistency of these policies, which probably stems from them not being well worded, well understood, or particularly firmly based to begin with. You would have some people complying with the spirit of the law (accepting complex questions with a single answer) while others VTC apparently any question that contains more than one question mark in the text. $\endgroup$
    – JamieB
    Commented Dec 29, 2022 at 0:55
  • $\begingroup$ (It especially amuses me when there is a closed question with multiple answers from 10k+ rep users. Apparently they found it to be answerable and worth answering, while others voted to close. It just proves my point. Even people with 6 digits of rep do not agree on the rules or how they are applied.) $\endgroup$
    – JamieB
    Commented Dec 29, 2022 at 0:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're looking at that information and deriving a conclusion that is not particularly relevant or enlightening. Users who do not care about policy at all, and just answer everything they see, are not a good benchmark for the consensus or usefulness or effectiveness of that policy. Users can easily gain thousands of rep by answering off-topic quei, and they'll never be stopped because they are clear of the A-ban zone, and because upvote gains are worth five times more rep than downvotes remove. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Dec 29, 2022 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Nij Which is why the real metric is "what's the problem" and therefore "what rules do we need as the solution", with a note that the rules that work for Stack Overflow don't necessarily work elsewhere, which is something SE acknowledges, and why every Stack has its own rules page. Was or is Worldbuilding in danger of being cracked down on by SE for being too far out of line? I don't think so. There was nothing wrong with Worldbuilding 5 years ago. So why the more recent changes? What drove them? $\endgroup$
    – JamieB
    Commented Dec 29, 2022 at 2:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why the change now? Maybe the stalwarts and strongholders that used to block change have left. Maybe the people who have joined in those five years have less tolerance for what was never okay and are doing something about it. Maybe the discussion has taken years to finally reach a conclusion that is viable and consensus-based. Maybe you're misremembering what used to happen five years ago and need to take your pink glasses off. Maybe all of that. Maybe none of it. I think you're definitely not presenting enough data and facts, so anything else is not going to help, is it. $\endgroup$
    – Nij
    Commented Dec 29, 2022 at 3:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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