« first day (1035 days earlier)      last day (3075 days later) » 

12:58 PM
Imagine there's a comment here about Americans who consider "http://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/11255/should-we-add-soccer-to-an-a‌​lready-pretty-full-schedule" a generic question and "http://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/10683/i-plan-to-send-my-child-to-m‌​ission-school-at-4-should-i-send-them-somewhere-el" too localised because one you see on TV, and the other is merely a decision half of Bangalore has to make
 
1:24 PM
@Joe And you would have been right... our "best stroller" friend posted an answer about how to get a kid to eat better, and ended by claiming that it will make them happy to eat in their stroller (which you can find at their website!)
I nuked the account from orbit... it was the only way to be sure.
@deworde There are good reasons why "too localized" was removed as a close reason
 
1:39 PM
@Beofett . nice catch to both of you @Joe
On the question from SciFi. He was really asking how to figure out if his son was ready to understand the book. Which I think would be a good question for here @@keen. I suggested he re-word the question at make it a little more general and ask it here, but if others agree, perhaps it could migrate if it still isn't a good fit for SciFi.
 
@balancedmama I find that I take a bit of perverse enjoyment out of destroying the account of spammers... is that wrong? :P
 
:-)
Should I celebrate with you?
 
Sure! You can even nuke the next account :)
 
Cool - as soon as the play starts I'll be back on more again - except the weekends of course! This week is CRAZY!!!! and we are ALL really tired.
It was a bad week for her to bring up soccer again.
@Beofett Although, I wouldn't want to steal your joy.
 
@balancedmama I can enjoy it vicariously, I'm sure.
 
1:43 PM
That's good.
@Beofett Did you take a look at the Hitchhikers' Guide Question?
 
@balancedmama Not yet. I glanced at the chat, but haven't really had a chance to look at the question yet.
 
It might almost duplicate the one I "shared" yesterday, but I think they are different enough and now that the original question is more focused, I actually think it would fit here nicely.
Which is not what I originally thought.
If it doesn't get migrated and he doesn't come over and ask it here, I might ask it here anyway. I really hope he does though - might be a good new community member too.
Off to Chase Children!
 
Hrm... I was feeling it was borderline, even with the edits, until I read your answer.
I think it would be fine over here, if it doesn't wind up being reopened on scifi
 
Most people don't know about RL's and how they measure reading ability expectations for books even though there are actually a number of ways it can be done (lexile just happens to be my favorite - I think its most universal and fairly accurate in my experience). If you don't know there is actually a mathematical equation behind how these things are figured using average vocabulary sentence complexity . . . it would seem opinion based.
Which Is actually why I think it would be a great question for here, especially if the wording of the question title was a little more general than he has it now.
 
2:11 PM
@balancedmama Yes, I certainly... had no idea! That's great info, and I agree that introducing the "wizard behind the curtain" for this stuff would be great content here
 
2:45 PM
@JamesSnell Good point, comments deleted
 
I cleaned up some of the other comments there, too.
 
3:01 PM
Hrm... let's see if my latest question can stir up even more controversy :P
0
Q: Is it okay for my child to be a "latchkey kid"?

BeofettMy parents were divorced and separated by the time I was in school. My mother worked full time, and didn't get home until several hours after school ended. As a result, I was what is known as a "latchkey kid", meaning that I had a key to the house, and after school, I would return home to an em...

 
 
3 hours later…
Joe
6:01 PM
@Beofett I don't think there's any way that cogsci question could really fit in this model... I'm confused by cogsci to be honest, it sounds like they just work like a forum rather than an SE site
That question is completely inappropriate for stack exchange in any form, unless other sites work reeeeally differently
The latchkey kid question is good, I don't imagine it will attract too much controversy
but who knows
 
@Joe Yeah, my limited experience with cogsci is they do run things a bit differently. They seem to have a core group of users who treat it as a platform for lengthy exposition
@Joe I didn't think it would, either, but then I saw the wikipedia entry for latchkey kid... lots of pretty negative stuff there that I was surprised to see.
 
Joe
wow, Illinois has weird rules
14?
that's insane
good thing to learn I guess now rather than later when DCFS comes knocking...
wonder if I can get an exemption or something if my kids are clearly mature enough younger than that...
 
yeah, no idea how old that law is, but its probably a good thing my parents moved to PA before getting divorced...
 
Joe
There are some groups out there related to "Free range kids"
which interest me to some extent
 
I've heard the term before, but I cannot get past my associating it with chickens.
 
Joe
6:08 PM
lol
Things like sending your 7 year old to the store on the corner for a carton of milk
illegal in some places (probably in Illinois I guess)
but certainly not unreasonable for the right kids
 
yeah, we've become a weird morass of unnecessarily rigid laws due to people not using common sense and being overly litigious.
3
 
Joe
I'm sure some of it is (at least in IL) parents who don't do their jobs, particularly in urban areas where it's a) hard to and b) you have a lot of relatively undesired kids
so the laws tend towards restrictiveness to give the police/dcfs ability to step in more easily
 
6:56 PM
Yo. @Joe, FWIW, I didn't ask a cogsci question, it is not representative of cogsci, it reflects nothing of the way cogsci works, and cogsci is no more (OR less) a forum than any other SE site. I'll see whatever gets said here, but I don't have much more to say, and am disinclined to respond to further comments like these.
 
@NickStauner I'm very sorry you're unhappy with the rules and expectations here. I really would like to get your question into a place where you can get some useful answers, but you seem disinclined to even consider compromising between the community expectations and your personal expectations.
The question, as-is, is very broad. When we close a question, we are really putting it on hold, with the hopes that it can be improved to the point where it fits our format appropriately.
Thus, if the question gets closed, it is not, as you put it, us who are "dismissing" your question. We're merely trying to get it into a format where we, as the community, feel it will receive the most favorable attention.
Your question, even with your improvements (and I do appreciate that you made the effort to edit the question), still contains a fair amount of tangential points, secondary issues that further expand the possible scope (regardless of the disclaimers), and doesn't really express the fundamental problem you want to "solve". At its heart, the best I can make is that you want a list of possible reasons why this situation could exist
As has been mentioned repeatedly, there are some interesting, and very relevant concepts in there. But the question would benefit from some significant refinement. This isn't a criticism of you, or an attack; just a statement of what the experiences we've had here have shown regarding what does or does not work well in a question.
Regarding the comments about cogsci.se:
I have had some limited interactions with that site. I hold it in very high regard.
However, the level of detail that is incorporated into many answers there, or even some questions, far exceeds all but the most exceptional that I've seen on most other SE sites (granted, most of my exposure is to what are generally referred to as the more "subjective" sites).
I don't perceive this as a negative; quite the opposite, in fact. But the differences do seem to be there, and it can seem odd to those used to the culture more commonly found at many other SE sites.
 
 
1 hour later…
8:15 PM
I'm not convinced I've broken rules. I'm seeing three critics and two -1s (and two +1s). Now that I've edited out some objectionable aspects, all I can tell for sure is that some of you think I'd get more answers and not get closed if I throw out parts of my question. I'm willing to risk it for now. Those parts shouldn't widen the scope for people who can't speak to them, especially if people don't disregard the disclaimers...
I'm sure it's a surprise to see them all. I expect to violate expectations anywhere I go with the level of detail I invest in some of my posts. Culture in general has trouble coping with complexity, but at least I haven't come across many rules against it so far, nor has anyone cited any to me yet except your breadth issue. I disagree that my question is too broad, and doubt whether your community agrees that it is.
Forgive my semi-personal criticism, but the quality of critiques I've received does not inspire confidence in the critics' impartiality or attentiveness to the difference between rules and expectations. E.g., expectations don't always justify enforcement when reasons exist to violate them. Putting my question on hold would be dismissing the question until/unless it gets edited, which isn't "merely trying" to get it "the most favorable attention."
You have understood the heart of the question, and your reactions to the rest reflect that you probably cannot speak to the secondary issues, which themselves reduce to, "Is favoritism the same when it's disfavor? When a family is very large? Is it ever especially hard to resist, and might that ever be okay?" That's fine with me. I don't expect a comprehensive answer from anyone, though it is feasible, and wouldn't require a book.
 
One of the +1's was from me.
You are also definitely misrepresenting what was said to you.
I did not tell you to throw out parts of your question. I did, however, tell you that parts of the question would almost certainly do better as separate questions.
 
If your community insists that every question have a comprehensive answer, this is different from cogsci and Cross Validated, and their metas, and probably many other sites I wouldn't claim to know. Citing a rule that reflects this would be very helpful. Anyway, given the current edit, most of this is moot. FWIW, I know this wasn't personal, I didn't feel attacked, and I'm glad you've gotten a useful question out of it. The one answer I got so far was good too.
 
This isn't about "breaking rules". This is about trying to improve the question.
 
I expect the rest to be redundant with the parts that have been purged, but I'll probably check back. Duly noted on the separate questions distinction.
I may differ with MSO popular opinion on whether closing a question improves it. I feel the question has been worsened for lack of its optional subsections, and I expect disagreement on this matter, but I'm unconvinced of the need and overall benefit of the resolution we've reached. Just sayin'. Kind of over it though.
 
@NickStauner This seems to be a point of confusion, as well. You are criticising my "impartiality" and "attentiveness" to the difference between rules and expectations, yet if I were confused on that point, as you say, wouldn't I have closed the question, instead of refraining from using my binding close vote (and saying as much)?
@NickStauner Nowhere did I say that community "insists that every question have a comprehensive answer".
What I said was that comprehensive answers were a goal. There is a substantial distinction.
I am glad you don't feel attacked. Your extremely negative comments, both here and in various places on cogsci, made me feel that you found your interactions here personally offensive.
@NickStauner Of course closing a question doesn't improve it; nowhere did anyone claim that.
The idea is that if a question has some serious problems with it, it needs to be fixed. The former terminology was "close" from the outset; this led many people, particularly those new to the platform, to believe that it was a "final step".
In fact, the intent is that it is hopefully not final. The preferred scenario is that a question with serious problems is improved. Thus the change in terminology from "closed" to "on hold".
If we leave a question like that open before making significant changes, it runs the risk of answers being posted that would be made obsolete by the improvements.
 
8:36 PM
Cool. Knew some of that already, but others are helpful clarifications. Lots of messy implications ruled out here. Thanks. I'm not sure whom I've been responding to anymore; I don't remember what Joe said in the deleted comments. Got quite frustrated with some of the fairly inaccurate and unsupported critiques and responded sarcastically in mine. I blame character limits and a general sense of counterproductivity. A lot of patience went into the question, and could've improved the answers.
Disagree the question has been improved, but I've divested from it. Good luck with it! Surprised you find my comments elsewhere "extremely negative." Definitely still doubting impartiality all around here, but it's been a lousy introduction, so bad impressions aren't to be trusted. Peace.
 
 
2 hours later…
10:12 PM
@Beofett The term was coined by Leonore Skenazy for her book, "Free Range Kids" - its actually a funny and very real read - I suggest picking up a copy at the library next time you are there.
@Beofett Funny, putting a question on hold usually elicits more attention and is the opposite of a dismissal for certain.
 

« first day (1035 days earlier)      last day (3075 days later) »