Questions easily answered by studying a beginner-level book

What if a question is beginner level? I would say: Someone should answer it.

Some of the beginner level questions on stackoverflow have received answers that explain things in wonderful ways.

Beginner level questions are formulated in the way beginners ask questions. Experienced people forgot how beginners think.

Is it really important if a question is beginner level? Where is the boundary? I think it is more relevant whether the person has shown initiative. You can read a text book and still don't get it, until someone else explains it to you in a different way.

Maybe it should first be clear, what the problem is, before searching for a solution... If the problem with beginner level questions is:

• Answerers get angry at people who show no initiative and expect others to do their job: This is not a question about beginner level or not. But, maybe this kind of behavior is worth a special handling, such that there is a quick way for eliminating such questions, like, a button "No initiative" or something, only shown to users with higher privileges.

• Experienced people lose interest if they are always confronted with beginner-level questions. Then, why not ask people for putting labels on the questions like "beginner", "intermediate", "expert", and allow for filtering for these categories? Yes, some people might (possibly intentionally) choose a wrong rating, but then someone with privileges might override that rating...

• Q&A database filling up with garbage? Maybe there should be some means to rate the long-term value of a question and its answers, maybe there should be some clean-up days, expiration days after which a question and the answers disappear, ...

• Duplicates and very similar questions polluting the database? Why not offer the possibility to merge entries in some way, maybe having aliases for questions, so people can do a web search using different formulations?

Most likely there are other problems, and even more likely there are even better ideas to solve the problems...

posted almost 3 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

1y ago by Alexei‭

Dirk Herrmann‭

1387 reputation 1 31 141 48

There's still time

This scenario is not yet a problem for this site, but we will get there, since it's a huge problem for Stack Overflow

This topic should be separately addressed, too.

At time of writing, the main category here has 673 posts (perhaps a few more deleted ones, because I could have sworn I saw it say 674 before). As long as we're comparing to Stack Overflow, it took them about a week to get that far in private beta. When we're at the size Stack Overflow reached by, say, the start of 2011, I'll be a little more worried about "getting there" and having a "huge problem".

That said: it's all well and good to have a "community-focused" platform, but if the community's goal is to have a really nice, high-quality, public-facing reference library (and I really think that's the most worthwhile goal for a Q&A site), eventually that goal is going to come into conflict with the desire to treat "community" as a warm happy family. Even without such telos, there are natural limits on community formation before friction arises, with ingroup/outgroup dynamics etc. etc.

So at some point, some form of gatekeeping will be necessary. However, tone-setting can forestall a lot of gatekeeping, and works better when it's possible. So if we're going to be proactive, the best way to do that is by asking and answering model questions before the hordes arrive.

With that out of the way:

which they could have easily answered themselves by reading the first chapters of a beginner-level book or by doing a minimum amount of research with a search engine. That is, they did absolutely zero research effort and treats the community as an interactive beginner tutorial, expecting instant gratification by having their FAQ answered.

The problem here is not the ease of answering the question

...or of finding an answer off-site. I'd like to argue here that the reason SO has been successful (to the extent that it has) isn't because there are millions of questions; it's because some of those questions get millions of views. Here are the top ten most viewed. By my reckoning, that is:

• Five questions about Git, at least four of which relate to simple, fundamental tasks that developers will need to worry about all the time. (If someone didn't know how to force overwriting local files with a pull, it wouldn't be too hard to work around that anyway).
• Two JavaScript questions about basic array and string manipulation.
• A question about making hyperlinked buttons in HTML - any reasonable solution is more or less a one-liner, unless you want fine-tuned control with CSS.
• A Python question asking how to list files in a directory; even the most advanced variations on this (filtering the results with custom rules) are not that hard to walk through (pun intended), and the straightforward interpretation of the question is again a one-liner.
• A question about how to use the find command in Linux, although the task is better done with grep. Solutions here are inherently one-liners, because the question is about fixing a one-liner.

None of this is esoteric or complicated. The Stack Overflow answers find ways to write books on interesting, detailed explanations of the mechanics. (The problem is that there are way too many answers, and most of them want to write the same book, redundantly and not as well.)

My point is, questions in general aren't bad because they're easy. These questions are superior because they're easy. And if you decide ahead of time that you don't want the easy questions that everyone needs an answer for... then you don't get millions of views. Period.

(Of course, view counts are absolutely not a measure of quality. But you get the idea.)

The problem here is not the desire for instant gratification

If people find an answer by using a search engine and then finding and reading a Codidact post - mission freaking accomplished, right?

The problem here is not inherently lack of research

Ten years ago, as the rate of new questions on SO was nearing its peak (yes, really. I had a nice SEDE query for this somewhere but I lost track of it) one of their meta site's most infamous Q&As appeared, arguing for the importance of doing research before asking a question. But with the benefit of hindsight, we've learned that being able to find an answer on other sites doesn't make the question of low value. As I said on another post here, we can't make the Internet DRY, we can only make our own site DRY. From the perspective of site utility, it's better that we do have those easily researched questions - and show that we can answer them better than anyone else.

The actual problem is the expectation of interactivity

Speaking of that meta.SO post, the top answer there has an interesting bullet-point list:

• Search. Like mad.
• Test your code.
• Troubleshoot.
• Read blogs.
• Find books.
• Follow tutorials.

The latter three points are just generally educating oneself about programming, so they don't offer a lot of insight here. What I want to highlight is that researching is not just searching; it's privately studying the code. Testing and troubleshooting (i.e. debugging) leads to identifying and isolating problems, so that they can be clearly described and focused on individually - which in turn produces something that other people can search for (as long as they also do the above work). Without that, nothing useful can be produced.

The bad questions on SO mainly don't suck because of being about things that beginners need to know, want to know, or could wonder about. They suck because beginners are asking them, and because beginners are asking them in the context of their own personal struggle, lacking the necessary perspective to ask a good question.

When you let a beginner ask the question, what you get often doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Often multiple entirely unrelated problems are conflated or combined. Sometimes it takes considerable experience to ask about a basic problem correctly. Often it takes experience to notice a pattern (or here, or here...) in how beginners fail, even if it's "a typo", and look for ultimate causes of that failure.

A "good easy" question is one where the refinement has been done up front - so there is no demand for interactivity. Beginners usually don't know how to do that refinement, which is where the bad impression of "beginner questions" really comes from. Worse, the bad questions often get followed up with help vampirism, for basically all the same reasons that led the question to be bad in the first place.

How and Why

My mental model of technical Q&A sites breaks almost all of the objective questions into two categories:

• How do I do X?
• Why did X happen (instead of Y) when I did Z?

With beginners, the why-questions usually cause more problems. All the "please debug my code" questions fall into this category, and they get asked way more often than "please explain this dump of someone else's code" (though this can also generally be recast as a why-question). Finding someone else's bug usually isn't fun, and it rarely-to-never results in the ability to help a third party. If we're going to take those on at all, we really need a separate Debugging category for them, as discussed in comments on another answer here.

When easy how-questions suck, usually it's because they're a "please do my homework" question. Those are a lot easier to deal with, because they'll naturally break down into a logical series of steps, and then it's easy to point at whatever policy and ask someone to ask separate questions instead. From the perspective of the site, if the same homework assignment leads the same person to ask multiple, clear, non-duplicate questions - is there really a good reason to object?

The other main problem with how-questions is when the specification is unclear or ambiguous. Sometimes it can be hard to realize the existence of corner cases, or even just slightly interesting cases where it isn't immediately obvious what the output should be. But usually this is a sign that the question isn't really that easy anyway.

Looking at the current off-topic categorization:

• Asking for implementations of a certain feature or a whole homework assignment. You should include your (partially working) attempts in the post
• Asking for detailed explanations of posted code, unless the code is small, self-contained, and an attempt to understand it is also included.

That is: how-questions that want to do multiple things, and why-questions that require explaining multiple aspects or considering a bunch of irrelevancies.

Either way, that is what SO currently calls "Needs More Focus".

posted over 1 year ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Karl Knechtel‭

2185 reputation 39 54 282 87

Downvote them for now. If it becomes a common problem, then create a close reason of no-research, and close them.

Such questions should not be "answered" in comments. First, comments aren't for content. Using a comment to answer subverts the peer-review process. Real information on this site shouldn't be hidden in comments where it is easily missed.

Users should be encouraged to leave a comment explaining how some minimum research should be done, asking what research was done, or even suggesting specific research.

If such questions are actually answered too often, then that's another reason to create the no-research close reason. If people dump low-quality questions here and get the desired result, they'll be back doing the same thing again and again. Even worse, others will see that it works, and they'll be here doing it too. As Elsewhere has so profusely demonstrated, guidelines and even explicitly telling people to stop unwanted behavior has little effect. There have to be negative consequences, else there is no reason not to just ignore all the guidance.

posted about 3 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Olin Lathrop‭

1069 reputation 1 25 90 11

I would have a separation between what is on-topic / offtopic and what is worth upvoting or downvoting.

Thus for the specific case of questions showing no research, but are on-topic, I would consider downvoting, not closing (more details in this suggestion which received mixed reactions).

If I am not mistaken, most of the questions that fell in this category have already been treated like this (negative score, but left open).

posted about 3 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

3y ago

Alexei‭

5003 reputation 112 101 690 488

How to ask says:

Do some research

Before asking a new question, first take a look around. Has your question been asked before here on Software Development Codidact? You can do a search for keywords related to your question, or take to your favorite search engine to see if your answer is already there on Codidact.

In addition to just making sure your question hasn't been asked already here on Codidact, take a few moments to search beyond the site. If you put your question title into a search engine, can you find the answer to your question in the first three results? If so, perhaps consider alternative ways of sharing that information here on Codidact, or writing a self-answered question to share that knowledge.

I think that is the correct location to communicate this.

In particular, I think calling such a question off-topic is misleading, because it is not the topic, in general, that is off, but the question itself. For instance, one can ask really deep questions about arrays, even though most questions about arrays are easily answered by every tutorial.

As for actions, the most helpful response I can think of is to point OP to a resource answering their question. That could be done in a comment, or even an answer. That should deter help vampires, but give honestly confused rookies (who accidentally got their hands on a very poor resource and don't know that much better resources exist) a chance.

posted about 3 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

3y ago

meriton‭

2375 reputation 7 56 220 35

Beginner questions are not a "huge problem" for StackOverflow. They are the main reason SO got big at all. During what I would call its "peak", the joke going around was that the best documentation for any software is its SO tag. SO responded to this by creating a whole site feature around it, and many software publishers (including one of the largest of all time) officially use it as a user help channel.

I think the real problem is that self-styled experts begin to grow an ego in proportion to their rep score and mod privileges, and take it upon themselves to teach a lesson to impertinent newbies who dare to ask a question that is too simple and bores them.

I think the solution is for mods and active long-time users to get a reality check. The users are not here for your entertainment and amusement. They're asking questions because they're confused and want help. The system fundamentally works because it's fun to answer questions, but the users are not competing to please you, the "expert", with the most exquisite question where you can showcase your arcane expertise.

• If the question is too simple for you, ignore it and move on.
• If there's an objective problem (not just "how can you ask something so obvious!!!") then leave a comment explaining how it should be improved
• If it's already been asked before, link to the answer.
• If it's something that official docs answer, leave an answer quoting and linking to the relevant section of the docs.

For experts who tire of suffering the ignorant, unwashed masses, and crave the rarefied company of great minds only, perhaps a good solution is to find big-brain tags that are beyond the ken of harebrained noobs, favorite those tags, and browse exclusively them.

posted over 1 year ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

matthewsnyder‭

2224 reputation 52 60 262 92