Should "What are the advantages of X" questions be closed?
I see that some are open, some are closed, so I wonder what the policy is.
Examples:
asked Jun 7, 2015 at 19:26
-
1Do you want to change your title to read as "What are the advantages of closing questions like .. " What are the advantages of X" ? Vote to close this after that.– ChookoosCommented Jun 17, 2015 at 3:53
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
No, it is absolutely possible to answer a whole lot of questions about advantages of X without resorting to opinion.
See examples here: http://www.slf4j.org/faq.html#declared_static
This is at least one order of magnitude more constructive than scouring the stack* for something that can be closed.
-
That's not a good example. That's pointing to an FAQ of an external site, outside the network, outside the norms and procedures of Super User. And again, we didn't say to go out and run a search to close all in one sitting, they're closed as they're happened upon.– random ModCommented Jun 11, 2015 at 16:45
-
1@random Apart from being "pointing to an external FAQ" (which arguably seems like a good enough resource), I don't see what makes it a bad example. It is a case where advantages and disadvatages have clear, non-opinion-based meanings, and that's the point Erik was trying to make. Commented Jun 12, 2015 at 19:01
-
1SU is still not "show me the sales pitch" but "show me how to fix this issue". You ask for consistency, we're applying it. That you don't agree with the scope doesn't mean we're being inconsistent.– random ModCommented Jun 12, 2015 at 19:47
-
@random "Show me how to decide this or that way" is close enough for me.– Erik ICommented Jun 15, 2015 at 8:52
-
1Furthermore: When lots of questions lots of people find constructive hits a brick wall of "primarily opinion based" it might be time to at least create a different boilerplate text: "closed because someone thinks this can easily collect less primarily opinion based answers". But of course by now you all now that I'd rather want someone sit down and think through the scope of the site carefully.– Erik ICommented Jun 15, 2015 at 8:57
-
@random says: "That's not a good example. That's pointing to an FAQ of an external site, outside the network". It is a perfectly good example that you can answer such questions in a way that is not "primarily opinion based".– Erik ICommented Jun 15, 2015 at 9:00
-
That you can, doesn't mean that you will. Is like opening a can of worms. You can get either candy or worms, but everyone knows that the winning move is always not opening it.– BraiamCommented Jun 15, 2015 at 15:22
-
-
1The "can of worms" analogy is a strange one to use here for me. I would open the can to get candy. If its worms, who cares? I'll just go fishing. Or throw away the can. If a question or answers have potential I think we should keep them until its proven they are not useful. Commented Jun 17, 2015 at 21:55
They should be closed as "primarily opinion based" because they boil down to preference or just looking at comparison charts.
Why you are asking about the advantages or disadvantages is the real question.
- Do you want to move to another product and need that push?
- Do you think you're missing out on something by not trying it the other way?
- Are you really asking about a product recommendation instead? (We have another close reason for that.)
- Do you think something is wrong when you're doing it a certain way? What is the actual side effect you want to really look at?
That some are open is like all questions that don't belong. They were missed at the time. The policy on that is to close them as you come across them. Not necessarily to sit there and close them all when you're trying to prove a point.
-
2" Not necessarily to sit there and close them all when you're trying to prove a point." -> isn't consistency one of the basis of moderation? Commented Jun 8, 2015 at 20:14
-
Consistency in applying, not necessarily to run the blanket in one fell swoop, but as it appears, as it comes across– random ModCommented Jun 9, 2015 at 0:01
-
IMHO each question should be subject to the same treatment. That's my definition of consistency. Commented Jun 9, 2015 at 18:21
-
3How is an objective analysis of the pros and cons of a decision opinion based? I'm not saying these questions are good, but I do not think they are opinion based.– corsiKaCommented Jun 10, 2015 at 17:05
-
2Who's to say if a pro isn't really a con? Not being able to read DVDs natively might be a pro for one person, a con for a dozen others. Instead better to direct the question in a way where you can get pointed information of how it can be solved, not a list of things to compare @cor– random ModCommented Jun 10, 2015 at 17:53
-
1
-
@FranckDernoncourt: sitting down and closing all is the basis of much annoyance on stackexchange. Ideally I'd be arguing for changing the rules as a whole lot of the most useful questions here has later been retroactively marked as "not constructive" (sweet irony there) but for now let me argue for not applying "not constructive" just because we can.– Erik ICommented Jun 11, 2015 at 10:35
-
1@Erik I agree there is way to much closing on SE, but I find inconsistent moderation even worse. I fully agree with your answer. Commented Jun 11, 2015 at 16:35
-
1@FranckDernoncourt thanks for the support. I'd like to disagree on the importance of consistency though: "delete everything" and "accept everything" are possibly two of the most consistent ways we can deal with questions and answers but I think the answer is in between. The law is of course for the lawless and having rules that can be used to close opinion based questions and uncronstructive questions is a good thing, -as long as people don't start applying them just because they can.– Erik ICommented Jun 15, 2015 at 9:11
-
1I think a better example of how this type of question should stay open would be "how does A do x differently than B?" Not "Compare A and B for me" - it needs to be specific. Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 18:39