Well, I just posted a question in GQ a few days ago that eventually sank from the front page without getting any answers. When it was heading towards the bottom of page 2, I bumped it myself, and a few hours later got an informative, definitive answer from someone who (apparently) knew what he was talking about. Didn’t bother me to have to bump it myself, and was far preferable to sifting through a page full of jokes, WAGs, etc., while waiting for a legit answer to come in. Not that the jokes and WAGs bug me so much, but it can be frustrating when the thread starts to turn into a joke-fest and you still haven’t actually had an answer to your GQ yet.
I prefer
“General Askances” :rolleyes:
Oh fine. Here comes the comparative physiologist with the thesis on the three-testicled Gabonese tree monkey to ruin it for the rest of us. Just because I don’t know a hummingbird from a Hummer doesn’t mean that my post on their care and feeding shouldn’t be considered right alongside the annoying fellow with a doctorate in the subject who clutters up his post with facts and references.
[/sarcasm]
I would suggest that none of the answers in the OP are particularly noxious, in that they all suggest the basis for their conclusion and the data (or not) used to support it. Anyone reading the thread with even a bit of a critical eye would see which are useful and which aren’t.
Also, I would say all of the answers from 7 on are great GQ answers. Although it may be nice to link to an authoritative website that answers the question, there is a giant world wider web out there consisting of people’s actual experiences and those obsolete dead-tree based data structures. I’ve been frustrated in the past when people wouldn’t accept a citation to a source from a major commercial publisher with volume, author, edition, page number and ISBN number, but will accept it if it is written on some random dude’s webpage.
What pisses me off no end, however, is people who come in and state things definitively without identifying the source of their information, particularly when they are wrong. It seems to me that all too often the more strongly someone states something, the more likely they are talking out of their ass. For instance, “I aked my brother-in-law who’s a vet and he said that he heard the same rumour in veterinary college but there was nothing to back it up and none of his profs could find a reference to it”, is fine because you know it is a FOAF story from a while ago. Usually it will be a knucklehead who asks his brother-in-law, gets the same answer, and then posts: “There is no reference to any three-testicled monkey in any veterinary literature. Tell your co-worker he is full of crap.”
Well, there are places where informed opinion is the right answer in GQ. For example, the recent ivorybilled woodpecker thread. Colibri gave us as good an answer as is available anywhere – there’s enough evidence to tentatively consider the IBW is an extant species, but not the proof that would be required to convince the most thoroughgoing of skeptics. (And on matters ornithological, what Colibri posts must be regarded as accurate science, as one of the authorities-to-cite.)
Doing a parallel, I might post, “As far as I can tell, emus and cassowaries are always considered to belong to the same order.” That statement is not going to be improved by a cite, or even six cites, unless one of them reports essentially what I’m saying. Such an answer is useful (if relevant to the OP or an interesting hijack) to the extent that it’s a statement intended to be informative by someone who has some interest and background in a field. (In this case, simply my interest in vertebrate taxonomy having caused me to read and retain that information.)
It might also be noted that on a particular range of questions, factual answers are reciting what informed opinion or an official statement of belief might be.
“The APA regards aversion therapy as a supposed treatment for homosexuality as ineffective and inappropriate” is a statement of fact – not necessarily fact about aversion therapy (though I’ll bet my Strong’s Concordance they’re right) but fact about the formalized opinion of the APA. “The Catholic Church believes that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin” is a statement of fact – not about Mary, but about the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It’s a statement that’s provably true or false – either the Catholic Church officially states that they believe that, or not. Whether their belief is a valid one is beside the point for answering the question about what they believe.
I think the point that the OP (and Bricker and Colibri upthread) were making is that a WAG is even worse than useless. Not only does it not increase knowledge, but it actually increases or perpetuates ignorance.
I wouldn’t mind a new thread for people who actually want information and are not endlessly amused by the tiresome inside jokes and rampant speculation that make this board the joy it is.
I find it easier to just avoid answering questions in GQ anymore. Unless it’s real obscure, inconsequential, and not open to endless second-guessing.
It’s much more satisfying to answer questions in MPSIMS.
OTOH, having a correct and well-cited answer later on in the thread makes it possible (not probable, but possible) to correct and enlighten the poster who gave the WAG as well as the OP.
OTOH having a plague of WAGgery show up after someone gives a correct and well-cited answer makes it harder for threadfollowers to discern that someone has supplied a correct answer.
I’m okay with idle speculation if identified as such, of the nature of “wow, that’s a good question! I have no idea, but possibly the answer is XYZ.” You get some smart laymen, and sometimes their somewhat educated guess is right on the money. It is kind of frustrating when 20 people are speculating about a point of law and you come in and post the correct answer…and everybody keeps right on speculating. It’s like “geez, why do I even bother?”
Surely you can’t cite a judgement from a kangaroo court.
Ditto for medicine and other sciences. I’ve seen some quite erudite, well-researched answers couched nicely in educated layman’s terms get posted by many of our talented experts, only to have the post be ignored while the argument rages about the validity of crystals for focusing auras or how queen bee jelly really is the best approach for treating senile dementia.
You’re very welcome.
Only if by “possible” you mean “utterly unlikely” 
I’m reminded of course of any number of legal threads. But thanks for putting a smile on my face. ← that’s me
“Hope springs eternal in the human breast” - Alexander Pope
Very well put Dr. Gauss.
I hate to roll out the old, “yung’uns, baaack in meh dey…” schtick, but it seemed that it used to be that people were much more concerned with providing strictly factual answers to GQ questions and the invasion of wild-ass guesses is obnoxious. It’s obscuring the very valuable posts from people like yourself, pravnik, or Colibri and making the whole exercise a lot less valuable.
I think that discussion and jokes (no matter how tired) are fine, but it’s the random guessing or Google-fooing that I think is kind of annoying.
Sorry for the long hiatus.
I appreciate all your comments and am gratified that there seems to be some general sentiment that GQ is being diluted by a few too many WAGs.
Still, and I should have made this much clearer in the OP, I have no quarrel with jokes and witticisms in GQ. I agree with all of you who said that they were a BIG part of the fun and charm of the SDMB. I’d even go so far as to say without them, the Boards in general, and GQ in particular, wouldn’t be nearly as good (or addicitve!). They’re certainly one of the reasons I love this place.
No, my problem is with the totally unsubstantiated guess or, what’s worse, the unequivocally, decisively asserted answer - that’s wrong. Just plain wrong.
And, please note that my standards for a helpful GQ answer were not terribly strict. Look,
I’d consider answer #5 somewhat helpful, especially if it was given by someone I’ve learned to trust. Same for #6, even if I didn’t know the poster.
Thanks!
Your ideas and standards are great, now how do you convince the mods and admins to implement them. xash, Rico, DrMatrix & **samclem ** are the official GQ Mods. Are they open to suggestions?
Yes, we’re open to suggestions. Speaking only for myself, I’m as much if not MORE interested in having General Questions operate along the lines that KarlGauss outlines. But it’s an ongoing problem. We aren’t on here 24/7. We do the best that we can at this point.
I would personally like to thank anyone who hits the “report this post” triangle in the upper right hand corner of offending posts. Mods can’t read all the posts in General Questions. Well, I do, but I doubt the other guys do.
Those “Report this post” emails that we get alert us to things you have concerns with. Unfortunately, we have real lives, and an email may not get handled for many hours. But we do get to them. We sometimes don’t agree with you, but we do get to them.
**Sam ** that is great to hear and I report very bad posts, apparent Trolls and members looking for help or needing formating fixes. But without improved guidelines along the lines of what KarlGauss suggested, I do not see how you can expect the average poster to stop the quick WAGs and faulty Googles. We need some guidelines, maybe it is time for a revision of the GQ stickies?
Jim
You’re absolutely right. This is under discussion, and I hope will be resolved soon. That may help.