0
\$\begingroup\$

I noticed this post today : How to make something happen every N seconds in game?

It was modified to a much more generic, and even a understandable question. However, I don't think it was the question the user was trying to ask. It's likely a question or two in the comments could have resulted in a quality question.

The clarification or at least a step closer to what the user was asking came up in the comments.

Also, before edits there was more information in the question that given further clarification was indeed valuable information for someone to provide an answer. While I do appreciate the moderator looking to make the question/answer worthwhile, it ignores the user's goal in trying to get an answer to his question.

If there doesn't exist already a moderation process that addresses this kind of thing, it'd be worthwhile to have one so that the ideal outcome is that the user gets his question answered or pointed to content on the site that already answers it.

Changing the question to something that doesn't fit the intended question, for whatever reason, results in a negative experience for that user.

Update enter image description here

Now it looks like this now it looks like this

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The revision history is available in the question. Is there something specific you wanted to highlight by including a screen shot of it? \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 5:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, I posted what it was originally when I viewed it, and now I've updated with what it looks like now. Not sure why it's changed, but the original wording of the question gives context to this question. A blank entry, doesn't. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ You need to click the arrow to expand the details of the revision. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 6:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ It also show that you edited the question just shortly after I posted this question, so that's kind of odd. But, either way, my original point is just that we try to facilitate answering the intended question as that's a value to any individual user. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ - ok, sorry I didn't see the arrow. see that now. But yeah, still good to have it in the question with that wording. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I edited the question after answering here to again remove the unrelated question and asked the user to post it as a new question. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 6:24
1
\$\begingroup\$

It's certainly challenging. Questions often come in the form of multiple simpler problems. I think breaking these questions into their simpler components and encouraging the user to ask the questions that were filtered out as new questions is the best option.

In the case of the question you linked, I didn't feel as though the changing of the sprite was the root question. I let the user know I modified their question. They didn't respond to the comment, but I see now that later they edited the question again. I've added another comment to their question and reverted the changes. I've asked them to ask the sprite changing issue as a new question. Since changing a sprite and making a recurring function are totally unrelated.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 5:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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? \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 5:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 5:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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 :) \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 6:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ 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. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, it's a continuing process. It's hard to make everyone happy. Thanks for you input. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Nov 11 '13 at 6:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ no problem. was just a suggestion. \$\endgroup\$ – prototypical Nov 11 '13 at 6:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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