Timeline for If you can Google it - don't ask it here
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2012 at 5:49 | comment | added | jmort253 Mod | @Shog9 - We have a great community here, and the vast majority of users we've spoken with are critical thinkers who carefully weight the value of each individual question against the guidelines. I don't think we'll have a problem, but we'll definitely keep our eyes peeled for any issues. Also, please see my answer here: meta.pm.stackexchange.com/a/377/34, which highlights an example of what we hope this guideline will help us overcome. Thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it! :) | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 3:04 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Probably the best "success story" is EL&U, for which the "General Reference" close reason was created. Even there, "dictionary" questions were just a symptom of a larger problem - but the idea that there was a canonical reference that anyone interested in the topic should already have at least works there. Conversely, I've seen the "google" shorthand backfire horribly when folks latch onto it who don't realize it is shorthand - for instance, closing non-trivial questions on SO because they (knowing the answer and thus how to search for it) managed to find an answer documented somewhere else. | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 1:17 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | I understand what you're saying. But we are not trying to fill in the gaps for Google. We are using the expression as short-hand to get the idea across. Have you seen that approach work/not work on other sites? | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 1:13 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | Focus on that then; as a community, you're free to define your scope as necessary to ensure the questions you want are included, and undesirable questions are excluded. This can - and should - be considerably more nuanced than simply, "this can be answered using Google." Attempting to provide better results than Google is laudable; attempting to fill the gaps in scope a fool's errand. | |
| Jul 6, 2012 at 0:18 | comment | added | Mark Phillips Mod | We've had issues in the past with questions which are simply looking for definitions or people to do their homework for them. This has negatively affected participation on the site by experts on the subject and diluted the value of the site. | |
| Jul 5, 2012 at 21:41 | history | answered | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |