3

In the question «Як українською „Само собой разумеется“?»:

  • Per my opinion, every answer (as of 2017-04-26 06:47 AM UTC) is OK, because:
    (1) They provide laconic and complete answer.
    (2) They provide reference.

  • But (supposedly) bytebuster put the following banner near almost every answer:

    We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

Don't you consider the banners to be unreasonable?


Per my opinion, we need good answers, not long answers. Short answers are often bad, but not always. It makes sense to put this banner only on answers that are short-and-bad, but not on short-but-good. (If not rephrase it at all.)

Per my opinion, "Just say X" is (most always) a bad answer; but "The A dictionary/book/linguist suggests to say X" is often ok.

  • -1: This does not look like a genuine question. As the 2nd part of the post shows, you already know the answer. Also, this post needs editing out the invitations for opinionated answers like "do you consider?" – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 7:20
  • Будь ласка, відредагуйте запитання, щоб воно було запитанням, а не оголошенням. Інакше на нього буде неможливо відповісти об'єктивно, і його треба буде закрити. – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 11:25
3

I think that the question itself is poorly asked and as such provokes short answers which are in fact correct. It's like asking "Is January the last month of the year?" with answers like "No, the last one is December".

The question is too simple to give long answers. So I don't think that the banners help here, because they are fighting with effects and not with the cause.

  • Exactly. As I said in comments to my answer, I'm a bit reluctant to close/delete bad posts single-handedly, especially if others push it as high as upto +8 votes. OTOH, we need helping the users see the difference between the good and bad posts. – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 8:55
  • Personally I don't consider the question as "very bad". While the question is certainly shorter and less-detailed than it should be — such oversimple questions (providing a possibility to give obvious but concrete answer) can attract new answerers. Like "WOW! know it!! I can answer it!!!" – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 9:13
  • I.e. I'd criticize that question primarily for being too-short/not-enough-detailed, but not because too-simple. Though it's my personal opinion, I may be wrong. – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 9:17
  • And in such case, IMHO, it's really important to differentiate laconic-but-complete answers from not-simply-short-but-really-useless answers. – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 9:18
0

As per several similar questions here on Meta, our primary goal is providing with quality content.

One-line answers can be only useful in very rare cases. In most situations, they are not. Poorly researched answers may be quite good at BBS's, forums, or amateur discussion boards or publics on social media.
But they are not good for a StackExchange quality standards.

Imagine, a hyperlink in one of the answers is desperately pointing to a dictionary's page for "С" letter as a "proof" (yeah, it could be only worse if they linked a home page of the site:). And someone even attempts to claim that this link is good.

Think of it: non-backed claims and poorly-researched answers are very easy to deny — also with non-backed arguments, poorly-researched thoughts, or, most often, simply with users' opinions.

This site is about the established facts, references, and well-researched claims, not about opinions or emotions. Period.

Admittedly, the question itself is bad. It fails to provide with neither a context, nor even an attempt for self-answering. I tempted to close it on the first time, but then decided to wait for someone close-voted it first.
Anyway, a bad question is not an excuse for bad answers.

P.S. The post notices are standard as they apply the entire StackExchange network.


Links:

  • 1
    "In most situations, they are not." — yep, exactly as I've said in the question. But in rare cases when they arewe shouldn't attack/downvote them, huh? – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:06
  • "Poorly researched answers…" — sure. But, please, don't switch topic from short to poorly-researched answers. They're not the same thing (an answer can be laconic and still complete). – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:07
  • And what about all other answers you put the banner too? – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:08
  • @Sasha, we do not attack anyone. Everyone here has their right to vote on any post, according to their understanding. Re "all other answers?" — what is the question? – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 8:11
  • I am not about attacking somebody. I'm about attacking an answer: (IMHO undeservedly) downvoting it, (IMHO undeservedly) putting a banner. I am about all other answers to the same question, where somebody put banner too. – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:14
  • @Sasha, you're right, notices are a poor compromise. On mature SE sites, where a solid core of active users arises, bad answers get downvoted to oblivion, receive deletion-flags, and subsequently get removed. Notices are intended to remind about the quality standards; they are not for marking bad posts that deserve deletion. Mea culpa. – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 8:28
  • So, you say: you put these banners not to say "they are bad", but just to remind "short answers are usually not good (though this one may be fully ok)" — am I right? (Did I understand you correctly?) – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:32
  • @Sasha, have you read what the post notice says? – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 8:36
  • Sorry, what "post notice"? – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:45
  • @Sasha, please, the post notices is what you call "attacking the answer". These yellow thingies. – bytebuster Apr 26 '17 at 8:56
  • OK, I've read the "yellow thingie". Then I'm still waiting for an answer for <<So, you say: you put these banners [onto answers in Main] not to say "they [the answers] are bad", but just to remind "short answers are usually not good (though this one may be fully ok [!])" — am I right? (Did I understand you correctly?)>> Logical emphasis at "[!]" is important. – Sasha Apr 26 '17 at 8:59

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .