I like this question as well : Is it never good to just "state the question"? I think this matches with what we think about PSQs, and contains more arguments as to why anybody from any category benefits from context. I've also noticed this weird trend occasionally, where OPs refuse context addition so that they do not mislead users and instead allow focus on the question , and/or permit approaches from all directions so that a broad answer is possible.

I can understand that from the point of view of an attempt, which we know can be misleading. But I do wonder about this : can there actually be any benefit from a question not containing context? Is there actually a modicum of truth in saying : "adding any details to this problem reduces the focus on it, and fixes my(OP's) directions, references and opinions on others. Hence, I will not add context." Just a thought, since this is what was expressed on those posts. I can imagine a few people sharing it, I can imagine many counterarguments. But I'd love a reply either way.

This is a great answer. Six months from now I doubt anyone who has been here for less than three or four years will be able to find it without strenuous effort, or by posting another meta question and having some old-timer link them to it.

As you know, I do not mind PSQs. The reason is that most answers to not PSQs are ITEOTTAA (Ignoring The Efforts Of the TE Anyways Answers). This side is not build to go into a deep discussion with someone having a question. It was never meant to be this way. This is a question-answer website. You ask a questions, and someone gives an answer. I still dont get why out of the sudden this has to be changed. Just kills the fun for everybody. :(

@Cornman yes, but the question needs to be clear, and I explained why the certain "questions" are actually much less clear than some think. That some users answer not what is actually asked but something else is a separate concern. I agree it is a problem too.

@Cornman The debate about PSQs is not new. For example, it was an issue debated in the 2014 moderator election (see here), and after his election then Jyrki Lahtonen, I believe, made an effort to reduce the number of such questions. The only "new" thing now is a different way of enforcing a long-standing policy.

@TeresaLisbon: My answer is that the purported reason you cite from some people refusing to add context is just an excuse.

@user21820 Good response . No, in fact, great response. It doesn't seem to be the most popular opinion around, so I wondered if it had any merit. Even then, a couple of posters with such views did respond in the comments with actual context, so it's not like people keep it stashed way from interested posters.

@Cornman I know that this is a question-answer website, but it's not just about the clarity. As explained in the post I attached above, there are a variety of reasons why context will improve a question. The reasons I pointed out for avoiding context is (apart from time constraint and/or laziness) actually the most common reason why people want to avoid context. It has been shown up as an excuse. It has been ages since we have "outlawed" PSQs. We do not need a blanket ban of entertaining and improving PSQs, but we pretty much need a blanket ban on answering them. Directly.

@TeresaLisbon My comment was more of general and not connected to the question which started it. I agree that a question should be as clear as possible and give all the context it needs. I just dislike that the new policy just leads to more discussion in comments, just for someone to join later and give a full answer anyways, which is very unsatisfying for the ones involved into deeper discussion. As I said you do not have to tools to discuss deeply here. The restricted characters in the comments are very annoying. Also I just "forces" people searching for help, to blow-up their questions ....

@Cornman It is not efficient in most cases. Actually, the problem is that we don't get feedback, but I was the only one , of all my classmates, who frequented stack exchange. The reason was simple : they couldn't find what they were looking for. About the "blowing up" of context, I understand that an attempt can be a problem, but it rarely, if ever, the case that the mention of source and background of OP cannot help form an answer tailored to the OP. Let me also say that I extremely rarely ignore the thoughts of the OP. I always try to proceed from the first point at which they were right..

.. and the reason we cannot refer to the past, is that global events have forced everybody to search online. "Efficiency" of time is going to reduce the efficiency of the site, which is going to be overwhelmed with PSQ after PSQ. The problem with having low standards is that if people know the standards are low then the site will be flooded. If , then, there is no urge to remove any question, then the community will , without a doubt, descend to the levels of platforms like Quora and Yahoo! answers. If there is a difference between these sites and MSE, then quality control is precisely that.

When MSE did not have the traffic it does today, problems like PSQs were not considered an issue because people could have their own opinions on the way things should work, and a majority of people had a clear vision for the site being a high quality repository of question and answers. Following the pandemic , the image of MSE dramatically changed as a site where you could feed your question in and get an answer. The principles of EoQS were always in place : it was the fact that the volume got too much and the high quality message was severely diluted, that it even came into play.

@TeresaLisbon Thanks for your thoughts.

(Note : by "clear vision" above, mostly everybody agreed on what the site wanted and had to be, but did not agree in the way it had to be done. Today, I'm not sure the majority even knows what purpose MSE wants to serve, or don't care. That's why enforcement is important in my opinion) @Cornman You are welcome! Of course, I see we have common ground as well, but it's good to ask these and get them clarified on the FAQ thread anyway.