Q&A - A way of decreasing the number of unresearched questions
-
So many questions time and time again on the CP Q&A are either not researched or are answered by a few links to Google or CP itself. I believe the following may help curb this issue. I would like to say from the start however that I don't believe it will solve it entirely - nothing ever does when humans are involved... anyway ... I propose that CP implements a Listbox feature for submitting a question to which a user must add a list of all the places they have tried searching. This means a user must manually input and add the sites they have searched on. It should not include any form of dropdown or suggestions box (even in descriptive text) as this would defeat the point - people would always just quickly select Google without thinking. Why will this solve the problem? Well it starts by making members required to have written where they have searched. This means posters have actively thought about the issue and so will be more likely to actually search. Secondly, answerers can then take it for granted that the person has searched. If the person obviously hasn't, I think a tougher stance should be taken than is at the moment - the question should be immediately deleted on the basis that (with the new measure) the question is invalid. This will reduce the amount of time wasted by answeres writing the well know words "search Google". Overall I believe this feature, if implemented properly, could well improve the standard of CP Q&A. Hope others agree, Ed
-
So many questions time and time again on the CP Q&A are either not researched or are answered by a few links to Google or CP itself. I believe the following may help curb this issue. I would like to say from the start however that I don't believe it will solve it entirely - nothing ever does when humans are involved... anyway ... I propose that CP implements a Listbox feature for submitting a question to which a user must add a list of all the places they have tried searching. This means a user must manually input and add the sites they have searched on. It should not include any form of dropdown or suggestions box (even in descriptive text) as this would defeat the point - people would always just quickly select Google without thinking. Why will this solve the problem? Well it starts by making members required to have written where they have searched. This means posters have actively thought about the issue and so will be more likely to actually search. Secondly, answerers can then take it for granted that the person has searched. If the person obviously hasn't, I think a tougher stance should be taken than is at the moment - the question should be immediately deleted on the basis that (with the new measure) the question is invalid. This will reduce the amount of time wasted by answeres writing the well know words "search Google". Overall I believe this feature, if implemented properly, could well improve the standard of CP Q&A. Hope others agree, Ed
So, you're proposing that we penalise users. All they will do is type google, and does that prove they actually have? In a lot of cases, they will type in something like asdfg just because it's quick, and deleting their answer will turn users away. Overall, I don't think this is a good idea.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
So many questions time and time again on the CP Q&A are either not researched or are answered by a few links to Google or CP itself. I believe the following may help curb this issue. I would like to say from the start however that I don't believe it will solve it entirely - nothing ever does when humans are involved... anyway ... I propose that CP implements a Listbox feature for submitting a question to which a user must add a list of all the places they have tried searching. This means a user must manually input and add the sites they have searched on. It should not include any form of dropdown or suggestions box (even in descriptive text) as this would defeat the point - people would always just quickly select Google without thinking. Why will this solve the problem? Well it starts by making members required to have written where they have searched. This means posters have actively thought about the issue and so will be more likely to actually search. Secondly, answerers can then take it for granted that the person has searched. If the person obviously hasn't, I think a tougher stance should be taken than is at the moment - the question should be immediately deleted on the basis that (with the new measure) the question is invalid. This will reduce the amount of time wasted by answeres writing the well know words "search Google". Overall I believe this feature, if implemented properly, could well improve the standard of CP Q&A. Hope others agree, Ed
The purpose of the site is to attract developers to ask questions and keep coming back so they can see ads. When has Chris ever stated that a poorly researched question is a problem for him? I think it's a bad idea.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
So, you're proposing that we penalise users. All they will do is type google, and does that prove they actually have? In a lot of cases, they will type in something like asdfg just because it's quick, and deleting their answer will turn users away. Overall, I don't think this is a good idea.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
But is deleting an answer really penalising? I mean you gain points for posting a question then you lose the same again for having it deleted so (in a basic scenario) the user simply hasn't gained anything. Anyway, you're not the only one who doesn't like it I see so I guess I'll have to put up with poor quality Q&A...rather tedious because I'd love to help a lot of the people that ask, they just don't ask questions properly....hmm...perhaps separate boxes for different bits of the question so that people have to follow guidelines? But you'll only say that people will not use them properly and will fill them extra inputs with junk... Oh well, I still think something needs to be done though, Ed
-
The purpose of the site is to attract developers to ask questions and keep coming back so they can see ads. When has Chris ever stated that a poorly researched question is a problem for him? I think it's a bad idea.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Agreed.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
-
But is deleting an answer really penalising? I mean you gain points for posting a question then you lose the same again for having it deleted so (in a basic scenario) the user simply hasn't gained anything. Anyway, you're not the only one who doesn't like it I see so I guess I'll have to put up with poor quality Q&A...rather tedious because I'd love to help a lot of the people that ask, they just don't ask questions properly....hmm...perhaps separate boxes for different bits of the question so that people have to follow guidelines? But you'll only say that people will not use them properly and will fill them extra inputs with junk... Oh well, I still think something needs to be done though, Ed
You aren't talking about deleting an answer. You're talking about deleting a question, and yes that is penalising the user.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
So many questions time and time again on the CP Q&A are either not researched or are answered by a few links to Google or CP itself. I believe the following may help curb this issue. I would like to say from the start however that I don't believe it will solve it entirely - nothing ever does when humans are involved... anyway ... I propose that CP implements a Listbox feature for submitting a question to which a user must add a list of all the places they have tried searching. This means a user must manually input and add the sites they have searched on. It should not include any form of dropdown or suggestions box (even in descriptive text) as this would defeat the point - people would always just quickly select Google without thinking. Why will this solve the problem? Well it starts by making members required to have written where they have searched. This means posters have actively thought about the issue and so will be more likely to actually search. Secondly, answerers can then take it for granted that the person has searched. If the person obviously hasn't, I think a tougher stance should be taken than is at the moment - the question should be immediately deleted on the basis that (with the new measure) the question is invalid. This will reduce the amount of time wasted by answeres writing the well know words "search Google". Overall I believe this feature, if implemented properly, could well improve the standard of CP Q&A. Hope others agree, Ed
I (and everyone) would like the quality of the questions to be improved and a variation on this suggestion has been discussed (but of course I've been looking and can't find the link!). However, asking members to list sites will result in (as others have said) asfg.com. There's also the case where a question is asking an opinion from CodeProject members specifically which means no previous search has, or needed to be done. Solutions must ensure that things stay easy for those who try, and guide (or even block) those who simply don't care. I'm more than happy to have less questions (and less page views, less load) and better questions than lots of junk.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
