Discussion on CV reasons and SE philosophy

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 17:21

@pentavalentcarbon Same here. The problem is, SE is a terrible forum for homework help (really, any online forum or Q&A is), because it takes a lot of close interaction to really understand where the problem is with their understanding.

pentavalentcarbon

Mar 30, 2016 17:50

@Brian Yes, but taking steps to make it more of a two-way street between us and them (by requiring more of them) can help to alleviate this.

The problem here isn't understanding what their real question is (like it often is in teaching), it's one of expectations between parties.

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 18:12

@pentavalentcarbon In some cases, yes. In others, like where an OP has an enormous, fundamental misunderstanding of something, clear expectations don't make the explaining any shorter.

@IͶΔ chemistry.stackexchange.com/help/badges/14/self-learner

IͶΔ

Yeah

user116211

Mar 30, 2016 18:31

@Martin-マーチン: English Men Team are in the finals :(

user116211

What's going on ;/

IͶΔ

@MAFIA36790 Where's the problem with that?

Did you want somewhere else to be in the finals?

@pentavalentcarbon The problem here is that if we don't expect their side to be interested, we'd start getting even worse questions.

The only way to objectively measure interest is see how much they've tried.

user116211

@IͶΔ: You can't get if you didn't follow cricket....

IͶΔ

That should ideally be the only reason we VTC or leave open a HW question.

pentavalentcarbon

@IͶΔ How can you get a worse question than this? chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/48737/pre-lab-question

In the United States, this is the beginning of high school chemistry/

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 18:36

@pentavalentcarbon You won't, instead you'd get butt-loads of those. And well, it isn't the worst case I've seen. At all

user116211

I've no problem with English Team but really it is difficult to digest that a team which never won a World Cup is now in finals :(

user116211

It's like once in a blue moon

IͶΔ

We VTC homework questions because we assume the OP is someone unfocused trying to get us do his job, rather than a baffled student eager to learn.

@Mart read this stuff please.

That's the biggest mistake with this.

We're judging content from its OP.

It has never been that way in closure.

But now that we've dived in, we can't look back.

pentavalentcarbon

I think we're in agreement but you didn't understand my original comment?

user116211

@IͶΔ that's not our problem?

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 18:38

@IͶΔ I don't think this is the case, actually.

IͶΔ

@Brian Only recently. It wasn't like this when I was an early reviewer.

Now how I understood it anyway.

pentavalentcarbon

@Brian What an optimist!

IͶΔ

@pentavalentcarbon I did.

Brian

I think we don't (and oughtn't) care whether OP is passing the buck, or whether they're a baffled student

user116211

@Brian Yes, that's what I'm saying

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 18:39

2 days ago, by IͶΔ

Ya know guys, I just realized discussions where people don't disagree are very boring.

@Brian What should we care about then?

Brian

In either case, the StackExchange Q&A format is poorly suited for answering

user116211

We should only care about the quality of the question.....

IͶΔ

How can you objectively judge HW content?

@Brian . . . homework questions.

pentavalentcarbon

He's saying you don't, and you give equal importance to all questions.

user116211

@IͶΔ HW should not ask about do this for me or check where I mistook

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 18:40

"You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page."

chemistry.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask

IͶΔ

SE never meant to be a place where people learn. It should've been where people correct mistakes.

Brian

3

A: Policy on questions in basic mediums

These sorts of questions touch on the fundamental identity of the community. What do we want to be on- and off-topic here? Do we want to be a resource that extends to educating raw beginners? Do we choose to take on the responsibility to guide every misinformed, misguided, or confused individual...

IͶΔ

@pentavalentcarbon That's impossible in reality.

user116211

@IͶΔ The later is a way of learning, isn't it?

IͶΔ

@MAFIA36790 You didn't get what I said.

pentavalentcarbon

Mar 30, 2016 18:41

@IͶΔ Of course, no disagreement here. It's the altruistic view.

IͶΔ

SE was meant to be for professionals, not learners.

user116211

@IͶΔ Ah!

IͶΔ

You can't your code running, so you come and ask why it doesn't work.

It shouldn't have been a place for someone who doesn't know how to code.

user116211

That did pave the way for Physics Overflow!

IͶΔ

@Brian How do you decide whether a question is chatty or not?

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 18:43

@IͶΔ I wouldn't use the word 'chatty'

pentavalentcarbon

@IͶΔ And yet look at Stack Overflow now. Too late to change it.

Brian

If I could rewrite the help page

'open-ended' is the real problem

Helping people figure out where their misunderstanding is

open-ended.

IͶΔ

@Brian Yes, comments are the worst chat experience.

Brian

(On the time-scale and communication-scale of a SE Q&A post, at least.)

IͶΔ

@pentavalentcarbon Yes, I'm trying to say why it doesn't work as a teaching board or something.

pentavalentcarbon

Mar 30, 2016 18:44

@IͶΔ +1

Brian

@IͶΔ That mindset is a large part of the Meta answer I linked above (chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/28628301#28628301)

user116211

Hmm...if SE was meant only for experts, then what are we doing here?

IͶΔ

> Let's make one thing clear: On StackExchange, you're here to help the OP, and many other people. To do so, you are here to make a library of detailed answers to questions. Helping the OP is just a part of it, and everyone should be here for something bigger, better, more beautiful. You're also trying to build something people coming from Google will be glad to read.

Brian

SE is a terrible place for learning the basics in broad scope

IͶΔ

> Enough said. The only thing I hope happens by writing this meta post is that next time you (plural) write an answer, take a look back and see whether your answer is something someone coming from two days of cumbersome failing Google searches desperately looks for. I hope this becomes one of the few steps in trying to improve the answers we write.

17

Q: How useful are "Here, say this instead" answers, when the OP isn't asking for them?

Imagine three scenarios in Q/A: Q1: How can I say that "foo bars the baz"? A1: Just say "the foo bars" instead. Q2: Is "foo bars the baz" grammatically correct? A2: Just say "the foo bars" instead. Q3: What is the difference between "foo bars the baz" and "the baz is barred"...

We're that place.

Brian

Mar 30, 2016 18:46

Whether we like it or not?

IͶΔ

The sole reason SE exists is not to be a discussion board.

user116211

Yeah....

IͶΔ

Discussion boards work for some questions.

Hence, SE isn't a place for every question.

HW is one of those types.

user116211

79

Q: Is Stack Overflow a forum?

I was under the impression that Stack Overflow was a forum, or a forum-like object. And if it is not a forum: Why isn't it? What defines a forum?

discussion forum

IͶΔ

I imagine the only reason HW was allowed in the early days of the site was attracting people.

@MAFIA36790 You should totally stop linking to that stuff and read Shog9's posts.

That dude is one such orator.

user116211

Mar 30, 2016 18:48

All HWs are not formidable, although.

user116211

Remember, we are not against HWs

pentavalentcarbon

@IͶΔ Can you remind me what the HW CV is for? meta.chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/3130/…

user116211

But are against those HWs which has really a dearth of quality or concept.....

user116211

As I said....

user116211

We are not Yahoo!

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 18:49

@pentavalentcarbon The best way to explain is take a look at standard HW:

> A sample of 2 grams of fun was digested by a chatroom . . .

That was supposed to be the only HW.

It was back then.

Now we're voting to close everything as HW, and that's both worrying and annoying.

Brian

We absolutely need to alter the close reasons.

IͶΔ

Good thing that people agree with me.

I'm never this successful on meta.lazy. :P

user116211

@IͶΔ There are 5 reasons, I guess? Why only HW reason?

IͶΔ

@MAFIA36790 You don't reason with nature. You find reasons for what nature is doing.

user116211

The most famous CV is unclear what you are asking....

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 18:53

Not here.

Anyway, AIWS, @Brian I think the way to solve this is to organize close reasons.

Give "lack of research" its own place, and watch out for its misuse.

user116211

I guess reviewing in Physics is much more easier, isn't it @IͶΔ ?

Brian

Things motivating me to VTC currently tend to be trying to say to OP:
1) "You didn't bother to write up anything about your thoughts, so I'm not going to bother to help you."
2) "I found that on Google in three seconds. Go away."
3) "Gah, you have [X] huge misunderstanding. The thought of trying to help you clear it up makes me want to die."
4) "That is such a basic question. The thought of trying to help you clear it up makes me want to die."

3

IͶΔ

HW goes back to being the close reason it was.

@MAFIA36790 Nope, you people don't seem to care.

user116211

@IͶΔ Hey, that's insulting ;(

IͶΔ

@MAFIA36790 Nope, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

user116211

Mar 30, 2016 18:55

We have to deal with 100s of reviews everyday....

IͶΔ

Do note that the two sites are in two very different phases.

The physics.SE path is set.

We're in the phase of deciding what we want to be when we're physics.SE size.

Brian

So, I see three broad close reasons (echoing earlier conversation with @Mart):
1) Medical questions (go to Health.SE), possible with safety and/or controlled substances added in
2) Too little effort shown
3) It would take too long to explain.

IͶΔ

@Brian Too long to explain is "too broad".

Brian

@IͶΔ Righto, I just realized that.

IͶΔ

@Brian There is a problem with guidance.

See, viewing CV as "go away" isn't helpful.

pentavalentcarbon

Mar 30, 2016 18:57

@IͶΔ Or it could be very difficult/complicated.

IͶΔ

Because there is hope that OP fixes it up.

user116211

@Brian: Yes, CV is not implying go away?

IͶΔ

I was always amazed at how many people do show effort and their Q gets reopened in the early days of my reviewing.

user116211

That's what is re-open all about?

user116211

@IͶΔ How many?

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 18:58

@pentavalentcarbon You can't tell me I wouldn't get the answer. That's just not how communication works. :)

@MAFIA36790 Considerable.

A considerable number.

That's why we have to be clear in telling them how they can fix it.

Assuming that the case is fixable.

We could've ended up with only one CV: "We can't answer this for technical reasons". But that wouldn't have been useful. It wouldn't have been useful because the OP wouldn't know how to fix it @Brian.

So we're coming up with a way on how to tell them better how to fix it.

Again, note that "what's the density of water?" is a lost cause and it won't be fixed.

We're talking about ones that can be.

All of this talk, so I'm telling you why we have to divide "too little effort shown" into two categories.

user116211

I'm missing the too localised one :(

IͶΔ

One of them is "You can find the answer without me, so bother me when you have something more interesting/important/intriguing/challenging".

One of them is "Tell me what you did, so I take it from there."

Brian

@IͶΔ Ah, well, yeah -- but if they're not motivated to fix it (and thus learn how to write better questions), then the SE model is to encourage them not to come back, right?

IͶΔ

The site is all about people.

Brian

(sorry for lag; meatspace conversation)

IͶΔ

Mar 30, 2016 19:03

@Brian Right.

It's looking to help people.

But to help people, there should be standards.

All the "free discussion for all -- no frigging rules" slots are taken

We're the library.

You can find the answer to many problems in a library.

Brian

@IͶΔ This is an important dichotomy. I like that.

IͶΔ

But if shout, they'll kick you out.

Hippalectryon

Throwing tables around is fine though :D

Brian

But is it appropriate to make that distinction in the VCRs?

IͶΔ

@Hippalectryon Well, this is the third place of the library. I guess the restroom?

pentavalentcarbon

Mar 30, 2016 19:05

@Hippalectryon Only in the part meant for small children. Like chat.

IͶΔ

@Brian Yes, if we want them to know how to fix it.

The Periodic Table

Participants