-8

Upon posting a discussion question which I'm sure is of interest to a significant
portion of the community and googlers alike I was told to re-read the guidelines
for questions etc.

There was a further attempt on my part to re-open in meta, but in light of answers
I can appreciate that hypothetical discussion is a no-go for a concrete knowledge
exchange forum.

The best option for such questions from here would be DMZ chat, and, while it has
some value, it has too heavy downsides; question does not receive proper attention,
nor is there incentive to take the time to give high quality answers.

NB: My question was impulsive and of little importance now, it's the principle
of such questions having a natural place that we will discuss.

Many would benefit from a special tag, name it discussion, hypothetical, whatever;
as long as it opens up for opinions and theories, clearly disclaiming such.
One way to prevent these questions from mingling with the current Q&A is
to create a unique discussion/hypothetical feed that seperates them, e.g:

enter image description here There is so much interesting knowledge in the heads of the infosec members
here, we shouldn't have to limit ourselves to clear-cut answers.

This would allow us to move many broad questions, instead of closing them.
I assume this is a significant workload to implement, but the idea is out at least.

1
  • 1
    If you want discussion, there's always reddit. – timuzhti Sep 22 '15 at 8:06
9

The management of Stackexchange has had this request multiple times, and Jeff Atwood provided a blog post explaining the situation:

http://blog.codinghorror.com/civilized-discourse-construction-kit/

At Stack Exchange, one of the tricky things we learned about Q&A is that if your goal is to have an excellent signal to noise ratio, you must suppress discussion. Stack Exchange only supports the absolute minimum amount of discussion necessary to produce great questions and great answers. That's why answers get constantly re-ordered by votes, that's why comments have limited formatting and length and only a few display, and so forth. Almost every design decision we made was informed by our desire to push discussion down, to inhibit it in every way we could.

5
  • Would it still be noise if it was automaticaly filtered out of question feed with the discussion tag? – Manumit Sep 2 '15 at 23:08
  • 1
    That whole blog post is about a way to code a discussion site. It's not a simple endeavour and still promote high quality results. What I'm also trying to say is that this is an issue for the entire network, and we here at one part of it cannot implement tech that is not available to us. – schroeder Sep 2 '15 at 23:12
  • So what you're saying is that this feature is out of bounds even if this exchange wanted to implement? In that case where is the apporpriate site to request? – Manumit Sep 2 '15 at 23:18
  • meta.stackexchange.com – schroeder Sep 2 '15 at 23:21

You must log in to answer this question.

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