I haven't CVd (yet). I'm still undecided. On the one hand, it's very simple, but it could be valid. I just don't see how we will get any variations in answers (on either) besides what I posted in comments.
@PeterTaylor I voted to close due to no objective criteria. With the addition of code-golf it has that now. But ... I still am not going to reopen. I can't do it in good conscience, it would be better if I could just change my close vote reason.
@Geobits I should get into the habit of downvoting more, close voting less .. that would probably steer me closer to the true spirit of the site at least for trivially bad questions like these
I find it interesting that a new user, seeing the kinds of questions that get answers here, would consider a simple "resolves to a trivial math formula" question as a valid, good contribution to the site, however.
How long did you have to be here to understand Peter Taylor's definition of trivial? It is HIS definition, after all, that appears to make the difference.
but I didn't start by asking questions, that seemed ... risky. Better to answer a few first, suss out the skill level of the typical question, and eventually start to formulate my own questions (have yet to do so)
I think there's an active debate on meta about that, @Rusher. Something about the inherent difficulty of modifying an OP's question while staying true to OP's goals, etc.
From what I read, the general consensus seemed to be "Close it" and encourage OP to create a new, better question through the Sandbox, or via Chat, or something.
So someone on meta said that the community shouldn't modify the original post in order to change the goals of a question. I am well aware that it was Peter Taylor (again) but that doesnt make it right
All he really did was use some buzz words that encourage closing and starting over rather than fixing in place
@Rusher Not just Peter, I agree with him on that. Refining details is one thing, but completely changing the question (which is what those examples would need) doesn't make sense.
I didn't say I could stop you from editing, just that I probably won't do it since I don't see the point. If the question does change enough to make it a good one, then good. I'd most likely retract my DV.
@Rusher I think you've convinced me to at least prefer DV to CV in cases of excessively trivial questions. Perhaps they are valid to some users for whom basic algebra is challenging? I'm not sure. I'm not convinced they are appropriate here.
I doubt I would ever upvote an answer to a question of excessive simplicity
so there's no value to users who do interact with those questions, at least from my perspective. Perhaps others would upvote those answers?
@Rusher Looking through my recent downvotes, I see that I've done that for a couple of questions which are on the border of being too trivial or duplicate and a couple of questions which have a spec but have stupid restrictions.
@Rusher But I have started always down-voting questions which I close-vote for two reasons: firstly, because to help the auto-deletion bot; and secondly, because the down-vote will stick.
@Rusher What happened to the netiquette of lurking and trying to understand what a site is about before participating? If a user can't be bothered to do that, why should we be bothered about them not sticking around?
@PeterTaylor Your theory on netiquette doesn't apply here, because of the attitude that we are different than every other Stack site. Users here have to jump through hoops to not only write a "valid" question, but one that also "pleases" people.
Everywhere else, a valid question is valid, albeit potentially bad.
Ok, let's say we are to keep closing trivial questions. I think I would be satisfied if "trivial" were well-defined. Some very complicated algorithms revolve around adding or shifting numbers to the left or right. Perhaps rather than arguing about it, we can constructively find a way to categorize trivial and non trivial questions?
Well, this is going from constructive to comical. Do you think he is posting an entire problem set from school or do you think he is really trying hard to be a part of the community?
yeah, that could be. But his latest post references an example that isn't posted. And don't assume that no teacher writes that poorly, I had a few doosies in my day.
Hah, yeah, I'm feeling the same -- in IRC parlance ... /me throws up arms and walks away
I think what's awesome is everyone answering is doing so in niche or obscure languages, frustrating OP's true purpose completely.
Makes me wish I knew non-mainstream languages well enough to contribute to the dance. It's trolling in a very non-trollish way, and it's lovely to watch.
@Rusher Heh, I'm waiting for the OP to edit the question to say they want a PHP answer specifically. That would give me the excuse needed to close the question. ;-)
We could redirect him to stackoverflow... Or just assume that everyone here has the basic troll-mindset of not answering in php and end up with the answer in literally every language ever, except php. I think the second is what will happen.
@PeterTaylor Stack X has a culture. Stack Y has a similar culture. Stack Z is more of a play site, and so has a different culture. If you are familiar with X and Y, but new to Z, you should be forgiven for missing the difference in culture.
I also did NOT say that people who lurk will be unable to figure it out. Your powers of deduction seem to only work in a way that suits you most of the time.
In other words, "failing to lurk" does not equate to "lurking but failing to understand"
My biggest problem with you, Peter Taylor, is that you force me to expend so much time and effort tip-toeing around the English language. Every other thing you write is either a misinterpretation of what I just said, or the correct interpretation cast in a more negative light. You basically always start with "I don't understand what you said.", then you wait for me to type a long explanation, and then you find the ONE mistake with my long explanation. You're just a troll in a mask.
@Rusher Every stack's different. This one might be more of an outlier, but I don't think that familiarity with one stack should be used as an excuse for not trying to understand a different stack's norms. (Not that it's likely to be relevant in the particular case in point, because that user doesn't seem to have participated much in any other stack).
@Rusher If you think I'm a troll then don't reply to me :P
I've got an idea, but I'm not sure how to specify it. Simulate a computer display from a science fiction movie. Like the vector graphics displays in Alien or Star Wars.
@Rusher These are most of the reasons I like Peter Taylor.
Think of it as kind of "litmus test". If Peter likes it, and thinks it's well specified, you have very little else to worry about.
I kind of treat Keith Thompson the same way in comp.lang.c. Even if he (Peter here, or Keith there) expresses a negative opinion, he will state it in a precise manner; so you can come away from it with more knowledge, and not just hurt feelings.
And if you address the concerns, the opinion will change.
