Timeline for Process that involves taking time to get to the root of a poorly worded question
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:23 | comment | added | prototypical | no problem. was just a suggestion. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:22 | comment | added | House Mod | Yes, it's a continuing process. It's hard to make everyone happy. Thanks for you input. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:16 | comment | added | prototypical | Part of the process is undoubtedly educating users on how to best go about drafting a good question and ultimately getting a good answer. But if we've decided that it's not worth the time, then we can abort and do like was done here or just delete the question altogether. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:12 | comment | added | prototypical | Just asking is all I'm saying would be good process, or at minimum asking after saying "Is this what you mean ?". All I'm saying is that the original question had one of two ways it could go and changing a sprite frame in java2d seems like it was one of the two and worth clarifying. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:05 | comment | added | House Mod | You only need look at another question that user asked: gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/65648. If you've been around the site for a while you'll see this kind of thing regularly. People like to include all the details of what kind of game they're making, then ask a very generic question. Also, if you have a suggestion for a process that can make judgement calls better, I'm sure more than just this site would benefit from that :) | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 6:01 | comment | added | prototypical | agreed, although I guess I question the judgement on that one given the revision history as it originally was shown. He clearly was working with Java2d and wanted to know how change the sprite based on a timer. Once the judgement call is made, I do agree it's best to stick with it. So as my question states, some process that goes a bit further than with this one would be ideal. Hopefully process can make the judgement call a bit more likely to get the user's question answered. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 5:52 | comment | added | House Mod | It's typically much better to edit with your best judgment first. If questions are left in a state where they're unclear, it can easily generate a number of answers that are all answering different questions. Once answers are in the mix, it's much harder to get things sorted. Since at that point, the question is clarified and you're usually left with answers that aren't answering the question any more. That leaves a bad experience for the people answering. Clearly the goal is to have the intended question answered. That's what I was attempting. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 5:42 | comment | added | prototypical | All I am saying is that process should probably be to ask first before changing to something that isn't going to answer his question. Or at least saying "is this what you mean?" after changing, as opposed to "I'm changing it to this, because it's more useful." Goal should be to have his intended question answered ? Or am I missing something here? | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 5:38 | comment | added | prototypical | It's weird how the revision history seems to be different now that it was originally. How does that happen? Posted image above as to how it looked before. | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 5:33 | history | edited | HouseMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 290 characters in body
|
| Nov 11, 2013 at 5:28 | history | answered | HouseMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |