Must we rename "General Questions" as "General Assertions"

[ShibbOleth]

@Giraffe

All the monkeys I’ve ever seen only had two testicles.

I’m not sure why, but this answer struck me as one of the funniest things I’ve ever read here. Maybe it’s the source.

[samclem]

@ShibbOleth

I’m not sure why, but this answer struck me as one of the funniest things I’ve ever read here. Maybe it’s the source.

Zoo humor. No accounting for taste.

[tomndebb]

@KarlGauss

There should be another bit with words to the effect of, “for answers that can be backed up. If you want to give your opinion, please note 'IMHO” below".

As it stands, the criteria for posting an answer in GQ is implicit (factual questions should have factual answers). It should become explicit. And, the phrase “with cites if possible” should be appended.

@What Exit?

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?

I can see where it might be useful to post such guidelines and recommendations. I am not as sure that they are very much enforceable (or even that it is a good idea to enforce them).

Certainly, it must be frustrating to be a lawyer or doctor who provides a serious and informative answer to a specific technical question, only to have someone come along later and post a WAG that is pure drivel. On the other hand, there are a myriad of areas of knowledge on which posters here can actually provide better informed answers than one will generally find on web sites. In such cases, we are liable to find genuine experiential knowledge being trumped by an erroneous citation. And, frankly, as bright as the GQ Mods are, unless the information falls within an area on which they have expertise, who is to say that they will be able to distinguish the bad information from the good?

Now, if we are suggesting that in a case where a known poster with a career in medicine posts an observation about a viral infection supported by links to Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Centers for Disease Control and the knowledgeable poster is followed by a poster who remarks “My Uncle Handy always said that it was caused by not drinking enough beer,” then the Mods quietly suggest that that later poster might read the thread before posting, I guess I would go along with that. However a great many odd WAGs are not nearly as clear cut (or are so obviously dumb as to really need no comment). In less clear cases, what action (if any) is proposed?

[What_Exit]

@tomndebb

I can see where it might be useful to post such guidelines and recommendations. I am not as sure that they are very much enforceable (or even that it is a good idea to enforce them).

Certainly, it must be frustrating to be a lawyer or doctor who provides a serious and informative answer to a specific technical question, only to have someone come along later and post a WAG that is pure drivel. On the other hand, there are a myriad of areas of knowledge on which posters here can actually provide better informed answers than one will generally find on web sites. In such cases, we are liable to find genuine experiential knowledge being trumped by an erroneous citation. And, frankly, as bright as the GQ Mods are, unless the information falls within an area on which they have expertise, who is to say that they will be able to distinguish the bad information from the good?

Now, if we are suggesting that in a case where a known poster with a career in medicine posts an observation about a viral infection supported by links to Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Centers for Disease Control and the knowledgeable poster is followed by a poster who remarks “My Uncle Handy always said that it was caused by not drinking enough beer,” then the Mods quietly suggest that that later poster might read the thread before posting, I guess I would go along with that. However a great many odd WAGs are not nearly as clear cut (or are so obviously dumb as to really need no comment). In less clear cases, what action (if any) is proposed?

I don’t think we are asking for warnings to be handed out or a lot of junior modding. I think that if the guidelines clearly state things like **Karl ** mentioned and things like “please try to hold off on your comical observations without a factual answer until there has been a reasonable chance for a factual answer to me made.” We as dopers will largely police ourselves. This is mostly true. Most of us try to follow the rules and are even slightly embarrassed by mistakes like posting in the wrong forum. Once we have a clearer understanding of what is expected in GQ, the Forum will probably run a little closer to what **Karl ** and the other Professionals are hoping for.
Of course, when giving factual answers, I would hope we would be encouraged to continue to include some humor in the answer; after all we have the Perfect Master as an example.

Jim