Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on What is our position on picture identification with no research?

Parent

What is our position on picture identification with no research?

+8
−1

Yesterday a user posted two picture identification questions with no apparent prior research. The same user did this a couple of months ago too. At that time, I spent a few minutes with Google Earth and was easily able to find where a couple of the pictures were taken, so I conclude that even the basic research wasn't done.

The site guidelines have this to say about researching questions before posting:

In addition to just making sure your question hasn't been asked already here, take a few moments to search beyond the site. If you put your question title into a search engine, can you find the answer to your question in the first three results? If so, perhaps consider alternative ways of sharing that information here on Codidact, or writing a self-answered question to share that knowledge.

Since I was able to find the location in a few minutes in Google Earth, it was clear that no research had been done. When the two new questions appeared yesterday, it looked like the same thing. If any research was done, it was certainly not mentioned in the questions. They appeared to be just pictures, like two months ago.

I've left comments asking what the poster had already tried, but these comments were deleted.

This question is about how we want to handle picture-identification questions with no research. What should we expect of people posting questions, and what should we expect of people commenting on these posts? Does our response differ if there is a pattern of behavior?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+0
−2

I'm separating this for voting purposes (since the other answer already has votes).

In another answer I proposed some options for dealing with picture-identification questions. The "mildest" of these options, in terms of disruption to the community, is:

  1. Decide they are ok in limited numbers and have a rule that any given person can have one such unanswered question at a time. This might encourage askers to either improve the existing question in hopes of getting an answer or delete it to make room for another. (We don't have any tooling for this, but on a community Somewhere Else we had voluntary rules about posting frequency for one category of questions, and the community largely followed it and enforced it when necessary.)

Some time has passed since this question was asked. Should we try this -- ID questions are ok (as they seem to be, by default, now), but you can only have one active one at a time?

I'm concerned that a site named "Outdoors" looks, to the casual visitor, more and more like a photo-ID site and less like a site where you can get answers about mountain biking, kayaking, camping, and so on.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

I don't mind a single user asking more than one <i>legitimate</i> picture identification question at ... (4 comments)
I don't mind a single user asking more than one <i>legitimate</i> picture identification question at ...
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

I don't mind a single user asking more than one legitimate picture identification question at a time. While "legitimate" is hard to nail down, @Canina's post pretty much nails my feelings too. Those rules are somewhat subjective, but that's why we have close votes. Moderators need to be willing to lower the hammer, though. It seems there is considerable consensus that what happened in the past is unacceptable.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 3 years ago

If we could agree on "legitimate" I'd be happy with that, but it's inherently subjective so I wondered whether an objective measure would help in the meantime. (I said one unanswered at a time, not just one at a time -- incentive to fix a question that isn't currently answerable instead of going on to post more like it.)

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

I think @Canina's post does a good job of describing the requirements for picture identification questions. I would rather judge each question on its own merits than artificially limit users to a certain number of concurrent questions, whether good or bad. The points in Canina's post are spelled out well enough that most of the bad ID questions we have gotten here would be clearly bad by any reasonable interpretation of those requirements. There will always be some on the edge that are judgement calls, but the problems we've had here recently aren't really near the line. For example, all 6 ID questions that popped up in the last 24 hours would all clearly fall short of the requirements. I'd hate to throttle users that do a good job asking good ID questions. If we ever get overwhelmed with good ID questions, then it might be time to reconsider a rate-limit.

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 3 years ago

These are good points, and I agree with Canina's proposed requirements.