Return to Answer

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

 

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.  

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.

I'm going to include my answer from Meta SO on this topic.

This question is not a real question. It's not an on-topic question for at least three of the reasons listed in the FAQ. It's opinionated, which means the original poster already has an answer. He posted that answer in his question box:

 

It may not be physically demanding but it sure is mentally demanding.

In order to keep this site productive, the line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise, we'll get more gray area questions like What do programmers eat? I know they eat food at some point in their day.

Additionally, I agree with Jeff, the answers are essentially all the same AOL "me too" type answers that don't really tell me anything I didn't already know or couldn't figure out by Googling some forum somewhere, a forum, that I might add, is probably now a ghost town on the Internet because the professionals keeping the site alive all moved elsewhere.

The blog articles that Robert, Jeff, and other StackExchange employees have written makes a great case for sites thriving because they're properly policed for content that doesn't meet the goals of the site. Unfortunately, we're not all going to agree with every decision, but please keep in mind that those decisions are made with the community's best interests in mind.

For a clearer, well written explanation of the dangers of allowing poor questions, please read Good Subjective, Bad Subjective.