An interesting question on a relevant topic? Let's close it. Thanks, SO mods.
- - Jerry E Pournelle
Any large enough organization tends towards bureaucracy, and the tendency is even stronger on the Web, where direct person-to-person interaction is more limited. And the evolution to "iron law" conditions tends to be faster there also, once the bureaucratic (rule-following and rule-enforcing) mindset is formed. Wikipedia, Google, and Amazon are other examples, they have all been getting worse to use over the last few years. Web-based organizations probably need to remain smaller than similar real-world organizations, if they want to avoid the effect.
We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion
Seems to be according to the SO "rules".. no?
Edit: davidlumley points out that this is not SO, and he might have a point.. Anyway, I don't think ppl should be mad at SO for not being what they expect or want it to be.
Its also incredibly fragmented - its impossible to pick the right instance for a question without getting in trouble.
its a proper power struggle.
Apart from posting answers, there really isn't much else restricted by the question's being closed. I really think it is not a big deal.
SO works great for some formats, but as a discussion board, it sucks. The question that was posed had no clear answer, we could all wax poetic on the pathology and prognosis and cure of the OP's problem, but there's only 1 big green checkmark to go around -- and when it's been doled out, there's no going back. Essentially, every answer to the OP's question in that thread is an opinion and, by definition, is impossible to accurately score.
But as a place to ask advice from other experts and get a feel for how they're inclined to think about the issue, it's absolutely fantastic. And the reason why it's such a great platform for that kind of thing is that the interface goes to such great lengths to discourage drawn-out discussion. By making it hard for argumentative people to dominate the topic, it makes it possible to get a feel for what everyone's really thinking in a way that, to my knowledge, is unprecedented.
It's true that there is one little detail, the green checkbox, that isn't a good match for this use case. At least not if you think of it as a way to pick the one Objectively True[tm] answer. But to think of it that way is absurd. Even with concrete programming issues there's often more than one way to do it, and everyone knows that in those cases and many others the green checkbox really just indicates which option the question asker liked best.
And beyond that, it's just plain wrongheaded to suggest that there shouldn't be room for opinion at a place like SE. It's tantamount to saying that there's no room for discussing the difficult, nebulous problems that real professionals have to deal with on a daily basis, and that the site's really only intended for helping people with the one case in which we can always expect a single objective answer: Homework help.
I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't discuss bigger-picture ideas, but I just think that sites that were built to function more like discussion boards are better suited for such topics vs. sites that were created with the sole intention of discovering a single, "correct" answer to every question.
SO's interface worked pretty well for opinion. Who cares if it's impossible to accurately score? The most useful stuff generally ended up near the top, so readers could quickly find a lot of good material.
As to the green checkmark, a querent isn't obligated to select a best answer. And if they selected one, so what? It pushed one answer up, but readers were perfectly capable of reading down.
SO's behavior with opinion is a classic case of founders saying "B-b-b-b-ut they're doing it wrong". Which is backwards. The purpose of a discussion system is to serve its users, not its programmers. This is exactly the same sort of idiocy that killed Friendster: https://plus.google.com/116014836340643816850/posts/WFH5eDug...
> We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed.
And to me (and this is of course just my interpretation), but that means that questions that can only yield subjective answers aren't really meant to be asked there.
Additionally, the FAQ[1] goes into even more detail that I think supports both my and SE's stance; the question ITT is, to me, clearly more under the "and it is not about..." section of the FAQ than it is under the top section.
They even plug another of their sites, The Workplace[2], as being a better fit for "general workplace issues, office politics, résumé help".
Point being, the question the OP asked here has absolutely nothing to do with programming, and thus doesn't have any place on a site that deals exclusively with programming.
But that doesn't really matter. You cite the rules as the authority for what should be there. I agree that the users and the rule-writers have different ideas about what the site should be. I'm saying the rule-writers are wrong, just like the Friendster rule-writers were wrong.
There's an untold number of other industries which face this same problem.