2 added 5 characters in body
source | link

Most of my experience comes from Software Engineering Stack Exchange. Bear that in mind while I try to frame this issue in a more useful way.

I love answering questionable questions. I firmly believe a good answer can redeem a poor question. I've managed to take questions that were about to die and by answering in a way that rejected the premise of the question I reframed the whole issue into a more useful and acceptable form. And I've done this with list questions.

The way I know this has been done is the answer crowds out other answers. There is no room left for "me too" answers that tack on and try to rise with the question as it makes its way to the "hot network questions list".

Therefore, a bad list question is a question that, even if you reframe it, reject it's premise, and give it a phenomenal comprehensive answer it will still attract "me too" answers that don't duplicate the best answer yet still don't really add anything better.

We hate that precisely because the votes for the answers to such a question tell you nothing more then which answer got here first. That makes our system look stupid.

So long as the policy that stops that result you don't have to dogmatically apply it. But it would be nice if those who ask questions didn't push their luck.

Most of my experience comes from Software Engineering Stack Exchange. Bear that in mind while I try to frame this issue in a more useful way.

I love answering questionable questions. I firmly believe a good answer can redeem a poor question. I've managed to take questions that were about to die and by answering in a way that rejected the premise of the question I reframed the whole issue into a more useful and acceptable form. And I've done this with list questions.

The way I know this has been done is the answer crowds out other answers. There is no room left for "me too" answers that tack on and try to rise with the question as it makes its way to the "hot network questions list".

Therefore, a bad list question is a question that, even if you reframe it, reject it's premise, and give it a phenomenal comprehensive answer it will still attract "me too" answers that don't duplicate the best answer yet still don't really add anything better.

We hate that precisely because the votes for the answers to such a question tell you nothing more then which answer got here first. That makes our system look stupid.

So long as the policy that stops that result you don't have to dogmatically apply it. But it would be nice if those who ask questions didn't push their luck.

Most of my experience comes from Software Engineering Stack Exchange. Bear that in mind while I try to frame this issue in a more useful way.

I love answering questionable questions. I firmly believe a good answer can redeem a poor question. I've managed to take questions that were about to die and by answering in a way that rejected the premise of the question I reframed the whole issue into a more useful and acceptable form. And I've done this with list questions.

The way I know this has been done is the answer crowds out other answers. There is no room left for "me too" answers that tack on and try to rise with the question as it makes its way to the "hot network questions list".

Therefore, a bad list question is a question that, even if you reframe it, reject it's premise, and give it a phenomenal comprehensive answer it will still attract "me too" answers that don't duplicate the best answer yet still don't really add anything better.

We hate that precisely because the votes for the answers to such a question tell you nothing more then which answer got here first. That makes our system look stupid.

So long as the policy stops that result you don't have to dogmatically apply it. But it would be nice if those who ask questions didn't push their luck.

1
source | link

Most of my experience comes from Software Engineering Stack Exchange. Bear that in mind while I try to frame this issue in a more useful way.

I love answering questionable questions. I firmly believe a good answer can redeem a poor question. I've managed to take questions that were about to die and by answering in a way that rejected the premise of the question I reframed the whole issue into a more useful and acceptable form. And I've done this with list questions.

The way I know this has been done is the answer crowds out other answers. There is no room left for "me too" answers that tack on and try to rise with the question as it makes its way to the "hot network questions list".

Therefore, a bad list question is a question that, even if you reframe it, reject it's premise, and give it a phenomenal comprehensive answer it will still attract "me too" answers that don't duplicate the best answer yet still don't really add anything better.

We hate that precisely because the votes for the answers to such a question tell you nothing more then which answer got here first. That makes our system look stupid.

So long as the policy that stops that result you don't have to dogmatically apply it. But it would be nice if those who ask questions didn't push their luck.