The comments and links to used when closing an elementary/homework question. I am making it CW, feel free to edit and/or add links to related discussions.
Related discussions:
The reason to close too elementary questions
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
I. This is not a **research-level** question in theoretical computer science as defined in the scope and is too elementary for this site (perhaps a homework exercise). Please see []() and read the FAQ.
II. This site is for **research-level questions** in **theoretical computer science**, that are likely to have short well-defined answers. "Research-level" means, roughly, questions that might be discussed between two professors, or between graduate students working on Ph.D.'s, but not usually between a professor and the typical undergraduate student. It does not include questions at the level of difficulty of undergraduate homework. You can try Math.SE (elementary math/theory) or StackOverflow (programming).
-
2$\begingroup$ I think that this is in the right direction. A few comments: (1) “FAQ” really requires a spot-on link to meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/225/…. (I modified the FAQ entry a little just now.) I do not think that new users (or even some experienced users) can reach the correct entry from just the word “FAQ”. (2) I prefer to have a list of alternative websites somewhere on Meta and just link to it rather than including the list in a comment. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2010 at 22:59
-
$\begingroup$ @Tsuyoshi: 1. I have put the [] () for linking to a more direct place, but we can also link the word FAQ above to our FAQ. 2. It is a good idea, why don't you post a question on meta: "where to direct people (e.g. when a question is off-topic)?" and we can collect them in one place. $\endgroup$– KavehNov 7, 2010 at 23:55
-
1$\begingroup$ I started a discussion about item 2: meta.cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/631/… $\endgroup$ Nov 8, 2010 at 0:53
-
$\begingroup$ I cringe every time I read the phrase "that are likely to have short well-defined answers." (you adapted it slightly since). First, "short" is certainly relative. In the context of this platform, it reads to me like a handful of sentences. Some of the best answers are huge. $\endgroup$– RaphaelFeb 7, 2011 at 4:29
-
$\begingroup$ As for well-defined, we have had a number of nice questions lately (here, here) that were not well-defined themselves (initially). Therefore, I think you state no necessary conditions for a good question there. Maybe you can think about rephrasing that a bit. Also, the bolding leaves the raised-forefinger-impression, but that might be intended. $\endgroup$– RaphaelFeb 7, 2011 at 4:29