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 »
Meta

Comments on Renaming Researched Q&A

Parent

Renaming Researched Q&A

+4
−0

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

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?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (3 comments)
Post
+2
−0

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".

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)
General comments
Mithrandir24601‭ wrote over 4 years ago

On WB SE, there was a bit of an issue in that people were very good at ignoring these requirements. Having said that, this was at its worst when a question hit HNQ. We're also not on SE any more (and this is now a science site, so no more e.g. purely magic questions), so... Maybe this is enough of a 'fresh start' that putting requirements into a question would be enough?.. There are other people with more experience than me who'll hopefully weigh in here though

Mithrandir24601‭ wrote over 4 years ago

In addition, I've gone through a number of (~50) answers in that category and only about a tenth (so far, in my opinion) are what I would term 'definitely good enough'. Whether this is an argument for (more easy to enforce the rules?) or against (trying to enforce the rules won't work?) separate categories, I don't know