Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Users Search
Help Dashboard Sign In Sign Up
Q&A Challenges Meta
Meta
Posts Tags Edits
Ask Question

Post History

50%
+0 −0
Meta Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?

Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they had done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxt...

2 answers  ·  posted 4y ago by deleted user  ·  last activity 4y ago by Mark Baker‭

Question community sharing
#5: Post edited by (deleted user) · 2020-05-08T07:20:24Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they had done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they had done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • One could easily be accused with the (philosophical idea) commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be _"How would you solve that problem?"_ and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be _"Problem describing and solution suggestion websites"_.
  • **Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?**
#4: Post edited by (deleted user) · 2020-05-08T07:17:25Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they had done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?
#3: Post edited by (deleted user) · 2020-05-08T07:16:26Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good in general, in Q&A sites?
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good, in general, in Q&A sites?
#2: Post edited by (deleted user) · 2020-05-08T05:11:23Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good in Q&A sites?
  • Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).
  • I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.
  • * Prior research enables community learning
  • * Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.
  • But if:
  • X = My Problem
  • Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
  • Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)
  • This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".
  • And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".
  • Is sharing prior research does more harm than good in general, in Q&A sites?
#1: Initial revision by (deleted user) · 2020-05-08T05:10:53Z (over 4 years ago) 
Some Q&A websites such as StackExchange require from people asking questions to share "minimal prior research" that they have done to try to answer their question themselves (and often also juxtapose a request for "evidence" for such prior research).

I can understand why "prior research" is required for say, _Code review StackExchange_, where I myself shared several codes I have developed after I first tested them myself and understood that they allegedly work as expected but I still wanted a review to make others and myself learn if perhaps I could write the code more efficiently.

* Prior research enables community learning
* Prior research is good for SEO as it raises the quality of a webpage; simply put, the webpage becomes more "on topic" not only by a (desirably) good heading but also by a richer inner content.

But if:

    X = My Problem
    Y = How I tried to solve it but failed
    Z = My question (why how I tried to solve it failed?)

This could lead to the philosophical situation commonly known as "XY problem".

And yet, if we only describe a problem, perhaps the only practical question to ask without causing an "XY problem" would be "How would you solve that problem?" and if so, perhaps a better concept than "Q&A" websites would be "Problem describing and solution suggestion websites".

Is sharing prior research does more harm than good in Q&A sites?