3

Yesterday, someone asked about a laptop recommendation. The question already had two upvotes last time I checked. And I had already written an answer. And with the latest discussion about what is off- and on-topic here Restoring a deleted question, I fail to see any reason why the question would be off-topic for hardware recommendations.
It was about a single turnkey solution (laptop), the question included somewhat detailed requirements, and it even gave an example for such a device (Asus Zenbook 14 with 8GB of RAM and a 10th gen Intel I5 CPU). Why did this question get deleted, and why so quickly?

| |
2

I was waiting for this one...

The only thing that question had going for it was a mention of some software that might be used on the proposed laptop. Past that... not much.

  • It didn't ask for a recommendation. It said "Is (X laptop) good enough for me?"
  • It asked why previous laptops were slow.
  • It asked for "advice and reading material".
  • It asked for "any other suggestions".

None of those things is on-topic here; there are strict standards that recommendation requests must meet, including not being overly broad, showing previous research, and providing sufficient relevant details. Questions that don't do this are closed and deleted.

The best advice I can give you is, again, read up on what's likely to be closed/deleted, and spend your effort elsewhere.

| |
  • 1
    That's just semantics. There are other methods in place if you don't agree with the way a hardware recommendation question is worded. Especially with a new contributor. But I'll heed your advice and spend my effort elswhere. Far away from this site. – user13807 Apr 24 at 10:35
  • I enforce the policy that the community has decided on, @MechEng. The community decided that there should be stringent requirements for questions here to avoid a flood of posts that we're not able to deal with or that aren't worth dealing with, and the community decided that posts should be deleted if they don't meet those requirements. – ArtOfCode Apr 24 at 10:52
  • 2
    This issue isn't just about about me disagreeing with the rules the community has decided upon long time ago. But for the record, I still do. It is also about your interpretation of these rules, and the measures you choose in order to "enforce" your interpretation of these rules. Especially with a new contributor. There was a legitimate request for a hardware recommendation within this question. You just chose to focus on the issues that go against your interpretation of the community rules. And instead of improving the question towards your expectation, you chose to delete it outright. – user13807 Apr 24 at 18:46
  • 2
    And starting your answer here with "i was waiting for this one" could allow the interpretation that you even tried to make a statement by deleting the question, instead of trying to improve it. Anyway, trying to improve this community feels even more like a waste of time, than answering questions just to have them deleted later without a chance of improving the offending parts. – user13807 Apr 24 at 18:51
  • @MechEng It's not enough for there to be a partial request for a recommendation buried somewhere in a question. Questions must focus on exactly one, detailed, specific, request, and not wander off into other subjects. That's not about my interpretation, it's about the standards this community has set. – ArtOfCode Apr 24 at 18:53
  • 2
    hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/… clearly defined requirements: check; show previous research: check, user came up with a device they hoped might meet their requirements; Provide relevant details in the question: check, question even had details about a previous device that did not meet the requirements; Include a good title, Make use of tags: can't remember; Not be too broad: check, question was about a laptop, and even more specifically, the CPU in it. So we disagree on whether it's the rules, or their interpretation. – user13807 Apr 25 at 0:30
  • No, @MechEng. You disagree. – ArtOfCode Apr 25 at 0:32
  • You say it's just the rules, I say it's your interpretation of the rules. That's a mutual disagreement;) – user13807 Apr 25 at 0:33
  • Look. Here's how it is. There are requirements. It's on me to enforce them; I do so objectively. If I changed them every time someone complained about them, this site wouldn't exist at all. More to the point, I can't just change them on a whim. So - I'll grant there's a small element of interpretation involved, but the point is that's not the point; it's the same for every question, so it always comes back to what the rules are, not how they're interpreted. If you don't like the rules, either you can use Meta and try to get them changed, or you can find somewhere with rules you do like. – ArtOfCode Apr 25 at 0:38
  • I am objective...maybe think about that statement for a minute. And no, it is not the same for every question. There are loads of questions still up for which I can't imagine that they would pass the same rigorous quality standards you applied here. Don't worry, I have already seen myself out a while ago. It just takes 24h to delete a profile. – user13807 Apr 25 at 0:45
  • I can't look at every single post, @MechEng - flags exist for a reason. Link 'em - if they fit, they stay, if they don't, they get closed. – ArtOfCode Apr 25 at 0:55

You must log in to answer this question.