Questions like asking current network size will not be very helpful longterm as the network changes and grows. The answer will always be out of date.
Should we make a rule to require any questions asked to have future value?
-
I think it'd be pretty hard to define which questions "have future value", so I don't really know how this would be enforced as a rule. It might be good to encourage that questions be able to have lasting value, but I don't think this would necessarily be a clear distinction you could draw. (That said, that question could end up being closed for other reasons as the topic/scope of the site becomes more clearly defined.)– V2Blast StaffCommented Jul 18, 2022 at 16:53
-
Doesn't seem to difficult to answer "is this a status update?" though, which is the other side of the same coin. I'm generally in favor of a rule in this vein– trent.solCommented Jul 19, 2022 at 19:42
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
I think such a requirement is unnecessary.
When ambiguous, incoherent, or un-researched questions are posted, the community benefits from a dialogue focused on improving those questions.
Incentivized by epistemic integrity along with the goal of useful answers, such dialogue has value in the merits of the resulting question, answers, and commentary.
Questions should have future value.
I see the point:
When ambiguous, incoherent, or un-researched questions are posted, the community benefits from a dialogue focused on improving those questions.
This is true, however the community would benefit more by refocusing the question to have long term value. Eg, replacing: "What's the current size of the Solana blockchain?" with "How do I determine the current size of the Solana blockchain?" makes the answers more useful.
Incentivized by epistemic integrity along with the goal of useful answers, such dialogue has value in the merits of the resulting question, answers, and commentary.
Who is being incentivised? How does Solana Stack Exchange have epistemic integrity? I'm not sure this phrase has much meaning.
