2
$\begingroup$

With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about space exploration(except those that are available on Google or Wikipedia) Which seems to be what the comments on this question are suggesting.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ +1 For bringing this conversation to meta, this is a great place to talk about this. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 25 '14 at 13:25
1
$\begingroup$

The key word there is detailed. On Stack Exchange in general (as well as Space Exploration in particular) we generally frown on questions that are easily answered by Google or Wikipedia, but those questions are fine if it is possible to answer in a way that is more detailed and accessible than what is already available.

What am I discussing in the comments with you (notice I haven't closed the question, so it is still a discussion--not a ruling) is the possibility that there may not be a detailed answer to your question that doesn't already exist on our site.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I'm inclined to think that this is not a real question for the reason that you're rising an altogether different issue (if our About / Tour should be rewritten) to address suitability of a single main site question for our site. One swallow does not make a spring. No, our About / Tour does not need changing. Yet.

This might be required in case we democratically decide that our scope and/or question acceptability requirements change some day in the future, but for the time being, we don't have a single such notion being voted on, if I don't count some suggestions to merge Astronomy and Space Exploration into a single site (and I'm not counting that because it really isn't for us to say if that should happen or not - we're two separately managed communities).


Our Help center already describes How do I ask a good question?, and among suggestions includes:

Search, and research

Have you thoroughly searched for an answer before asking your question? Sharing your research helps everyone. Tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs. This demonstrates that you’ve taken the time to try to help yourself, it saves us from reiterating obvious answers, and above all, it helps you get a more specific and relevant answer!

Meeting this should help you avoid needless duplication of contents in questions and answers, and is one of the concerns raised in the comments. And the other one, that the information is readily available via a simple web search, was now resolved by clarifying the question and precisely specifying what you'd like to know - which is meeting another of our qualitative requirements:

Be specific

If you ask a vague question, you’ll get a vague answer. But if you give us details and context, we can provide a useful answer.


The question has by now been edited to meet both these requirements, so that's not an issue. But changing our About / Tour equally isn't (see above), especially given that we already describe more precisely our scope, qualitative requirements, and so on in other pages of the Help center.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The initial comments suggested that any question, where the answer was available on Google, where not appropriate for this site. If the site only wants to support Q&A about insignificant (as evidenced by lack of other sources) pieces of knowledge. It will be difficult to be a significant source of significant knowledge. If the community does not want to be the top source of knowledge for space related questions, what does it want to be? $\endgroup$ – James Jenkins Sep 26 '14 at 10:50
  • $\begingroup$ Then it sounds like you are suggesting that the opening scope statement should be changed to " to build a library of detailed answers to non-trival question about space exploration". The opening statement of scope should be clarified by the details not countered by the details. $\endgroup$ – James Jenkins Sep 26 '14 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ @JamesJenkins No, like I explained in my answer, trivial questions are fine if detailed answers are possible. That's why the current about text is fine. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 26 '14 at 13:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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