Comments on Renaming Researched Q&A
Parent
Renaming Researched Q&A
Before launching the site, we had a discussion on Codidact Meta about naming the category we currently called "Researched Q&A". Other possibilities we explored included
- "Hard science", our starting point based on the hard-science tag from Worldbuilding Stack Exchange
- "Referenced Q&A"
- "Rigorous Q&A"
- "Research-level Q&A"
Now that the site's up, I wanted to restart the discussion. I think I dislike "Researched Q&A" on the grounds that it implies that the regular questions don't require well-researched answers. "Research-level Q&A" seems like it could come off as a little elitist. At the moment, I'd vote for "Rigorous Q&A", since that certainly describes what we're looking for in both questions and answers. What do people think - should we rename the category, or keep it as-is?
Post
This isn't "my" site, so I don't really care what you do. Take this as an observation from a bystander.
It seems to me you're trying to put a rather fine point on two broad classes of questions. It's not clear what problem you're trying to solve by dividing the site into ordinary questions and researched questions. Doing so only makes sense if there are significant numbers of users that would mostly visit one and ignore the other. Chances are, that's not the case.
Another possible reason is to make it clear what kinds of answer are expected to a particular question, but there are many such attributes, and this can be easily enough stated right in the question.
So, is whatever problem you're trying to solve really worth the confusion, endless arguments, and extra mechanics caused by splitting the site into two catagories? My outsider initial impression is "no".
1 comment thread