This question asks what possible events could bring about a global government collapse. We have a consensus that we don't do idea-generation for storytelling. Specific examples from that meta post:
Q: What conditions have to exist in a world to explain giant insects? — EXCELLENT
Q: Wha...
This question seems to be too broad. As Michael Kjörling noted in the comments though (emphasis mine):
I have a feeling that the more general question is better suited as a separate meta question, actually. For the specific case, I'm tempted to agree that it is very broad, but also (at a glan...
@MichaelKjörling I think the "[...]" is something you should do when omitting part of a quote, but you're absolutely right, the first part wasn't relevant.
@MichaelKjörling It does seem that every morning the new questions need some whipping in to shape. It seems like our more active members are all on a European rhythm.
@TimB A minimum of 50 votes for the famous question badge wouldn't be out of place.
Though one should keep in mind that the votes per view ratio generally drops as views rise.
It would be interesting to plot votes/views against views and time posted
for questions
I suspect the early days of the public beta (and the private beta even more so) saw way more votes per view.
@overactor About the downvoting rampage, I was referring more to my question on the main site. In the case of your meta question, it was my own quote, so I didn't feel too much qualms about removing an irrelevant (and potentially confusing) portion of it. :)
But I'd argue that when you copy all of what someone wrote, even if it's fairly short, it starts approaching the limits of what can reasonably fall under the fair use exceptions.
I think you can be fairly safe for now. Too much work looking up your IP address. ;)
@overactor Yeah, I considered Biology myself. If it doesn't attract more attention I might have a chat with some other moderators and see if it's more on topic elsewhere.
@MichaelKjörling I'm thinking the question will end up being that maximum force exerted by muscles rises with the square of scale and mass rises with the cube of scale
So that acceleration will be inversely related with scale
2 times bigger, 2 times less agile
But I can't find a credibly source to back the statement about muscles
and I'm likely overlooking complications @MichaelKjörling
@overactor I likely won't downvote an answer that explains the concepts just because it doesn't have formulas in it. ;) Obviously a set of formulas and references would be even better. // cc @TimB
Our opposing points of view seem to be around what is too broad. We have one side who think that we should become a repository for all kinds of questions and that almost nothing is too broad if it is interesting. Points in their favour are that we have a community that often gives answers that are detailed and long enough that they address the question fully and give a good answer in a question that would otherwise be closed as too broad.
The other point of view is SE policy in general and those who follow it which state that a question is too broad if it doesn't have clear criteria for an…
And we don't have enough engagement in meta to have that conversation as it stands.
@MichaelKjörling @TimB Do you think it is reasonable for us to change our 'Too Broad' closing reason to include a link to meta about the question? Or if we should introduce a more specific "Ideas generation" close reason?
@Mourdos The standard close reasons cannot be changed, although we can add site-specific close reasons. We have three slots standard, and can request more if they turn out to truly be needed (as has been done e.g. on Stack Overflow).
The site-specific close reasons will show up under "off-topic because..." in the close dialog.
Hmm. We really need to do something. I'm more than happy for our policy to change, but I'm not happy with policy simply being ignored. I just don't know how to do it.
I might work on the idea's generation close reason wording and definition and then post a meta.
If we can find some sort of consensus that idea generating questions are off topic, we can certainly add a site-specific close reason covering that. It would help make the site's scope more clear.
@Mourdos I think we need to be a bit more lenient as to what is considered too broad for our site. Since some of our most popular/well-received questions have been borderline too broad and most answers to them have been exemplary. Though I do see it's a slippery slope.
@Mourdos I think a better start might be to establish whether we really do want to close such questions as off topic. Then separately discuss how such a close reason should be phrased.
@overactor That's not my issue. I've said I'm happy with policy change, but unless we change our policy to be more lenient, people are just going "but it is interesting" and ignoring policy.
@Mourdos Closing a question is equal to "no new answers can be added". Locking questions is a separate matter (that locks votes), as is protecting them (requiring having earned 10 rep on the site to answer).
And yes @overactor, a close reason should ideally be actionable by the asker.
In that case, just a normal close. Something similar to historic, but without the connotations of "this used to be a question that fit until we changed something"
@overactor We had a case on Amateur Radio where the two were confused, and it turned into a bit of a mess. Better to keep them separate from the beginning: first establish what we want to do, then exactly how to do it.
Imagine someone wanted to divert a specific asteroid to impact the earth. The Current Impact Risks page at nasa.gov shows a list of known impact risks based on observations. Most of these asteroids are very small; this person would not be interested in them.
Some of these, however, look promis...
@Mourdos Yes, but I also pretty quickly edited it to include for the possibility of alternate proposals to get the same result.
Anyway, if you post these on meta, I strongly suggest including examples for each category. It makes it much easier to tell what is meant. Just make sure to clearly label them as examples.
Recently, I asked what could kill all humans except for those in low orbit. Out of the answers that popped up (which included the Ragnarök), I picked a plague as being the most desirable for my particular needs.
Some background
A virus, purposely engineered to target and kill humans was (delibe...
The answer to this question is effectively: Anything you want it to be.
That means there is no clear way to pick an answers, which in turn means that the question is too broadly scoped. Asking for a list that includes almost every set and subset of actions a person could take does not.
Imagine someone wanted to divert a specific asteroid to impact the earth. The Current Impact Risks page at nasa.gov shows a list of known impact risks based on observations. Most of these asteroids are very small; this person would not be interested in them.
Some of these, however, look promis...
The Factory Floor
The Factory Floor