21

This question is closed because it's opinion based.

It basically asks why Ctrl + V paste is not implemented in PowerShell.

There's a comment below, "This can't really be answered by anyone except the PowerShell design team."

In my opinion, that doesn't mean a question should be closed.

For one, the PowerShell design team is also on the Internet; two, they might have written a blog post somewhere about it or put it somewhere in the specifications/RFC documentation; and three, there might be an obvious reason why it's not implemented.

I've seen many questions about why certain things are implemented in a certain way with good answers.

Examples:

Even if people add opinionated answers, then the problem are the answers, not the question.

13
  • I generally agree with your last point. However, the OP needs to be clearly asking for specific references or technical causes (e.g. like here), and we need a good set of rules to remove opinionated answers from such posts, like they do on Skeptics.
    – slhck Mod
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 11:48
  • 3
    @slhck: I agree with the KISS principle. If every OP has to ask for that every time, it costs additional effort; if instead the page would remind people of this, it costs less effort from both the OP, the respondents and the readers. Even on this very page, nothing reminds us of that.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:18
  • @TomWijsman What is "the page"? We cannot possibly have every rule written in the "How to ask" bullet list next to posting a question. We haven't even agreed on a "Opinionated answers will be strictly deleted" rule in the first place.
    – slhck Mod
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:34
  • @slhck: This page; therefore not the "ask question" page, but rather the page where you give answers. Perhaps it is time for a "How to answer" bullet list next to posting an answer.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:50
  • 1
    I think your point is valid, but the question isn't a good example to keep open. Generally, a question needs to have a problem to solve, not just "why this"? It's a small distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
    – Raystafarian
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 14:51
  • 2
    @Raystafarian: The problem could be that copy/pasting with the keyboard is hard, an OP might be trying to figure out whether addition of CTRL+C/V is possible and as a research wonders why it cannot be added. This is an example scenario where OP tries to solve a problem; though it's a XY problem, with X being the need for easier keyboard copy/pasting and Y being the denial of such shortcuts. Perhaps we need to turn these Y questions into X questions, where this comment would be a good answer.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 16:53
  • @TomWijsman I think that's an acceptable approach. This question is the one that sticks out in my mind on how an explanation of a non-answer can be a good answer.
    – Raystafarian
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 18:22
  • @slhck, the OP needs to be clearly asking for specific references or technical causes. If I were to edit that into the question, would that qualify it for reopening?
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 9:50
  • 1
    Why are you providing examples from Stackoverflow. We can only answer why a question was closed at Superuser.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 12:09
  • @Ramhound, what do you mean? The questions I linked in the bottom were not closed. They are just examples of "Why was ... implemented this way?" questions that have good answers, just about programming languages or frameworks. Even though they are on another site, doesn't mean they can't demonstrate that the type of question can generate good answers.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 13:44
  • Yes; I realized that after look at them. But the point remains. Stackoverflow and Superuser are different communities.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 13:47
  • The reasoning that this format is not fit for SU is that it cant have good answers, right? The same reasoning should apply to SO. Basically, there can be many reasons someone would want to know about the inner workings of something. While it might make it better, I don't think it should be 100% a requirement to state why you want to know something. So like I said, while SO is different, that doesn't per definition mean that those questions cannot be used as examples. Here's one from diy. "Why ... this way" -> because he wants to change / reproduce it.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 14:12
  • If you were to edit that in, I would personally consider reopening it, but also under the condition that we can agree that opinionated answers without reference need to be deleted (and can be flagged for moderator attention). I think this is the bigger issue to address first. The problem I have with the post at hand is that it seems like a big rant.
    – slhck Mod
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 15:37

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
9

In my opinion, the main problem with the question is that answering it won't "solve" anything. You won't get help out of it, you'll get possibly true stories of why this is like that, but that won't change anything.

And to me, this (historical documentation) is not the purpose of this website, and it won't "help" anyone either. The fact that other similar questions didn't get closed feels irrelevant...

8
  • 11
    So would adding "I'm planning to rebuild powershell" above it, make it appropriate?
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 16:35
  • 2
    Sometimes it is not obvious; another example question Why did organization X create framework Y? might seem curious and subjective at first, but might be a vital part of the OPs ability to understand the difference between the frameworks and decide between them. (The better type of shopping questions)
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 17:03
  • @MatthijsWessels The thing is, if you wanted to rebuild powershell, I'd assume the question would be a lot different (more detailed, more technical, more focused, or on the other side more theoretical, more general) if existing at all... The question as is it now won't help much rebuilding anything, and the comments about .Net breaking stuff, or the OP's opinion about "every time I press ^v I think it's high time someone changed this", leave little doubt about the intent.
    – m4573r
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 19:41
  • @TomWijsman if it's not obvious, then the question might not be voted to be closed :) In your example, if the OP would like to know this information to make a decision, they would probably state it in the question, and even if not, provided the question is worded correctly, I could see a potential of helping others. I see none of that in why-doesnt-windows-command-prompt-still-support-ctrl-v
    – m4573r
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 19:48
  • 4
    @m4573r: (Quoting this question's title) Knowing "why ... is implemented this way" can help make a decision if you were to reimplement it. People don't see the need to mention an attempt at reimplementation, because they consider it irrelevant to the question. It only becomes relevant the moment that answers don't help; sometimes these extra missing details help, sometimes they don't. It is easy to attach whole PC specs and logs and what not; but in the end, it is a ton of noise and could even bring people on the wrong track...
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 20:03
  • I think as answerers / moderators we should at least consider the possibility that the questioner has reasons for asking the question that can't reasonably be communicated in the SE format. Not every question we don't understand is caused by a failing of the questioner's understanding. I can for example recall times when I knew the answer to a question asked by somebody smarter than me who was pursuing a problem that I do not understand. Sometimes I even thought the question was misguided, when in fact it was not. These issues cannot always be resolved, so we shouldn't try too hard.
    – Croad Langshan
    Commented Apr 3, 2015 at 13:54
  • Understanding the design of tools often helps use them. I think it's a mistake to require every question to flag up their use. Instead, we should proceed as if they were asked in the spirit of good SE questions. If they were, all is good. If not, the questioner might not get what they wanted, but others likely will, because the answers will still be good answers to the generous interpretation of the question. It's only when there are multiple good (i.e. generous) interpretations that there is a problem.
    – Croad Langshan
    Commented Apr 3, 2015 at 14:14
  • "You won't get help out of it" - We'd know why such-and-such was implemented in so-and-so way, when we didn't know before. Adding to people's knowledge is inherently helpful.
    – Vikki
    Commented Dec 19, 2021 at 21:54
8

The problem is that questions like that, unless they are very specifically and carefully worded (and even then), usually attract answers like: "I think it is because… ", which is an opinion and not helpful.

Worse, people will upvote the answer because they think it's the right one, even though there may be no merit to it.

This is a problem and it happens even if it wasn't the intention of the author of the question. That's why questions like that are generally closed, they attract bad content.

12
  • 2
    The problem is that even in this meta question ... you think ... that the wording of the question is the only thing that is related to attracting subjective answers. Upvotes happen after the cause and are unrelated; reporting such answers could help, but not without reminders. See my first comment to this meta question.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:24
  • 2
    @TomWijsman: Contrary to the main site, personal opinions on subjects are welcome on meta. I don't understand what you're trying to describe. Instead of closing such questions, the site should notify the user that the question is likely to be closed? And then what?
    – Oliver Salzburg Mod
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:31
  • 2
    Subjective statements may be welcome here, though facts and references are powerful; this is the point I'm trying to make, there is nothing that hints towards including facts and references. Let me make it more clear as you seem focused on the question, I'm instead talking about improving the answers; eg. "how to answer" bullet list next to posting an answer.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:54
  • @TomWijsman: If you think a certain aspect of the site should be changed, maybe you should post that as a separate question. This question was asking for the reason for a certain behavior and I provided one. If the whole process can be improved by a simple change to the site, great, but I don't think this is the proper post to discuss them.
    – Oliver Salzburg Mod
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 12:57
  • 1
    Quoting Matthijs Wessels: IMO, that doesn't mean a question should be closed. Even if people add opinionated answers, then the problem are the answers, not the question. Subjective problem reasoning is not an answer. Solutions aren't questions and problems aren't answers.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 13:08
  • @TomWijsman There's a problem with signs. I used to work parking enforcement. Lots of times people would be unhappy with being cited for yellow curbs, too close to a hydrant, handicapped space, etc. And too many times, they'd say, "There should be a sign." to which I'd often retort, "And then the streets would be cluttered with useless signs repeating things people should know already. And people would start ignoring them." Put signs on everything, and people stop reading. Sometimes best to swat questions or answers that are bad (opinion, in this case).
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 13:19
  • 1
    @killermist: That doesn't explain why there is a "How to Ask" box but not a "How to Answer" box. That's like placing a "Parking" sign but not drawing the lines for the cars to park in; this yields more work for you to enforce it, as well as becomes a recipe for complete disaster.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 13:26
  • @TomWijsman I guess my point is that there is a FAQ and a clearly outlined set of rules for the community, that users should have read. In the same way, when driving there are the rules of the road, and the driver is responsible to know the city's ordinances for parking. Some drivers don't bother to read the parking ordinances, so they're upset the first time they get a ticket. But after that, they don't do it again because their ignorance has been replaced with knowledge not to do something. Much the same with users. Swat a question or answer, and the user should learn to not do that.
    – killermist
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 13:38
  • @killermist: On a vacation trip I'm not going to first search and read all the parking ordinances for every city where I happen to stop. That's why a lot of parkings and places summarize their rules at entrance (paid ones usually have a barrier). If you don't want to get charged (more) money, you will read those rules as they are much more visible than the ordinances.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 13:45
  • @TomWijsman, killermist So say that adding a "How to answer" box would decrease the number of opinionated answers to these questions significantly. Would these questions then be permitted?
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 16:40
  • 1
    The mentioned problem in this answer could in that case resolve significantly; so, yes.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    Commented Jan 13, 2015 at 16:56
  • @TomWijsman let's do it then :). Even if it's just as a trial.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 8:20
1

My perspective:

Questions why something wasn't implemented in a standard is easier to answer. As for the other question about why Microsoft didn't implement a loopback interface I don't personally feel it's a good question honestly. As for the reason questions exists on Stack Overflow, I cannot answer, since I am not involved as much in that community for a variety of reasons.

As for the reason a Windows feature doesn't do something, there isn't a way to know the specific reason. Besides, if that question were to be answered today, it would be different, considering that feature will be in Windows 10. The linked question has very little to do with PowerShell, it was erroneously, connected to PowerShell by the commenters.

There are Windows command line programs that do support that shortcut. The answer to a question should be based on fact. A question normally is in trouble if more than two people are posting an answer which presents their opinion. An answer can involve some educated guessing on what the solution might be, but if that solution isn't based on fact, then there is work to be done (to improve either on the question or the answer).

10
  • So if the question is worded differently, it could be salvaged?
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 13:47
  • @MatthijsWessels - Its possible. Still doesn't change the fact any answer wouldn't be based on fact. It entirely depends on the topic. In this case the topic, is asking why a windows feature doesn't support another windows feature ( keyboard shortcut ), we can only speculate. In this case the question your asking about cannot be salvaged.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 13:50
  • But how about that: "the powershell design team is also on the internet; they might have written a blog post somewhere about it or put it somewhere in the specs/RFC doc; and there might be an obvious reason why it's not implemented.". I know that on SO questions have been answered by someone from "the team", so I think it's not completely unlikely to happen here as well.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 14:18
  • @MatthijsWessels - Except the question wasn't specifically about PowerShell, while question itself mentions PowerShell, it only is using it as a comparison to the command shell itself.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 14:29
  • Ok, replace PowerShell with Command Prompt everywhere
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 14:33
  • @MatthijsWessels - As I said. Windows 10 will have new a command prompt. Its possible if the question was worked on, that it could be answered today, but only because those changes are being talked about. As I said its very topic specific, as for the reason, that's the problem with question. We don't know the reason why it wasn't originally implemented. Apparently Powershell and the command shell both use console host which is what actually is being updated.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 14:38
  • Well the question could specify the version of Windows its using. About: "We don't know the reason why it wasn't originally implemented.". Who is "we"? And if nobody knows, then that basically means the question remains unanswered, as with any other question on any other site, right? Is a question bad because no-one happens to know the answer? It is not inherent to the type of question or this question specifically that nobody knows.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 15:11
  • @MatthijsWessels - Questions that require somebody to state an opinion are bad questions. When the question that you linked to, was asked, somebody would have had to sate an opinion. Even today the question cannot be answered without stating an opinion, although the fact the console host itself is being updated, is an answer to an unasked question ( i.e. can the command prompt support copy and paste functionality ). You wanted the communities opinion on the reason the question you linked to was closed, we have shared that, at least those of us willing to speak up. Which I know regret.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 15:18
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Matthijs Wessels
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 15:46
  • @MatthijsWessels - I can't use chat feature from my current location. I will get back with you on that.
    – Ramhound
    Commented Jan 14, 2015 at 16:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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