Post History
The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now. These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic ...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Lundin
·
2020-11-17T15:08:46Z (about 4 years ago)
- The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now.
- These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic and what questions that should be allowed. Nothing is set in stone and there's always the possibility to change things, if there is enough community consensus.
As another example, the Software Development went with an entirely different and broader scope than SE, which allows some level of discussion and more subjective "best practice" questions.- It's up to every user of the site to discuss the scope here an meta, what questions should we allow?
- We should also have in mind that people come here from SE with very different expectations:
- - Some thought SE was bad because of the corporate/profit model and how they treat their users & volunteers.
- - Some thought SE was bad because it was too elitist and "snarky".
- - Some thought SE was bad because it allowed too many basic questions from people without sufficient domain knowledge.
- And so on. The latter two reasons might collide and sating everyone will be hard.
- ---
- What I personally think was most problematic with the FPGA question is that is asks 3 rather unrelated questions at once:
- - The first one is pretty easy to research with Google & Wikipedia.
- - The second question could be a good one if given more detail and a specific example. Discussing PCB traces or EMC in an application with FPGA + some manner of radio is a perfect question for this site, but we'll need something more concrete, because there are thousands of possible and completely different applications.
- - The third question might be good for a self-answered Q&A or such, if rephrased a bit and also possibly with the term FPGA narrowed down a bit. For example, here's a similar such question I wrote about common beginner problems with CAN bus: https://electrical.codidact.com/q/276251. Something similar for FPGA might be nice.
- (Though it might have to be narrowed down to a specific tool chain? - I don't know a lot about FPGA personally and haven't written HDL since uni.)
- ---
- Regarding the power supply question, I agree that it wasn't great either. I could have closed that one as "too broad" as well, though the intention is obviously to write self-answered Q&A, in which case I would perhaps be more lenient. Because writing a good question when doing self-answered Q&A is _hard_! I've done a lot of such myself and one always underestimate the question, since the poster themselves think the answer is what's important.
- In this case I think the question could improved by giving a simple, specific example and then the answer could refer to that example as well.
- ---
- Finally, I strongly disagree that everything ever posted on the Internet has value by default. Experience from SE shows that the majority of the stuff posted there actually holds no value what-so-ever and can be safely deleted with no loss to mankind.
- The whole SE experiment ought to finally have killed the myth "there are no stupid questions" and replaced it with "there are some questions which aren't stupid".
- The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now.
- These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic and what questions that should be allowed. Nothing is set in stone and there's always the possibility to change things, if there is enough community consensus.
- As another example, the Software Development community went with an entirely different and broader scope than SE, which allows some level of discussion and more subjective "best practice" questions.
- It's up to every user of the site to discuss the scope here an meta, what questions should we allow?
- We should also have in mind that people come here from SE with very different expectations:
- - Some thought SE was bad because of the corporate/profit model and how they treat their users & volunteers.
- - Some thought SE was bad because it was too elitist and "snarky".
- - Some thought SE was bad because it allowed too many basic questions from people without sufficient domain knowledge.
- And so on. The latter two reasons might collide and sating everyone will be hard.
- ---
- What I personally think was most problematic with the FPGA question is that is asks 3 rather unrelated questions at once:
- - The first one is pretty easy to research with Google & Wikipedia.
- - The second question could be a good one if given more detail and a specific example. Discussing PCB traces or EMC in an application with FPGA + some manner of radio is a perfect question for this site, but we'll need something more concrete, because there are thousands of possible and completely different applications.
- - The third question might be good for a self-answered Q&A or such, if rephrased a bit and also possibly with the term FPGA narrowed down a bit. For example, here's a similar such question I wrote about common beginner problems with CAN bus: https://electrical.codidact.com/q/276251. Something similar for FPGA might be nice.
- (Though it might have to be narrowed down to a specific tool chain? - I don't know a lot about FPGA personally and haven't written HDL since uni.)
- ---
- Regarding the power supply question, I agree that it wasn't great either. I could have closed that one as "too broad" as well, though the intention is obviously to write self-answered Q&A, in which case I would perhaps be more lenient. Because writing a good question when doing self-answered Q&A is _hard_! I've done a lot of such myself and one always underestimate the question, since the poster themselves think the answer is what's important.
- In this case I think the question could improved by giving a simple, specific example and then the answer could refer to that example as well.
- ---
- Finally, I strongly disagree that everything ever posted on the Internet has value by default. Experience from SE shows that the majority of the stuff posted there actually holds no value what-so-ever and can be safely deleted with no loss to mankind.
- The whole SE experiment ought to finally have killed the myth "there are no stupid questions" and replaced it with "there are some questions which aren't stupid".
#2: Post edited
by
Lundin
·
2020-11-16T14:24:30Z (about 4 years ago)
- The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now.
- These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic and what questions that should be allowed. Nothing is set in stone and there's always the possibility to change things, if there is enough community consensus.
- As another example, the Software Development went with an entirely different and broader scope than SE, which allows some level of discussion and more subjective "best practice" questions.
- It's up to every user of the site to discuss the scope here an meta, what questions should we allow?
- We should also have in mind that people come here from SE with very different expectations:
- - Some thought SE was bad because of the corporate/profit model and how they treat their users & volunteers.
- - Some thought SE was bad because it was too elitist and "snarky".
- - Some thought SE was bad because it allowed too many basic questions from people without sufficient domain knowledge.
- And so on. The latter two reasons might collide and sating everyone will be hard.
- ---
- What I personally think was most problematic with the FPGA question is that is asks 3 rather unrelated questions at once:
- - The first one is pretty easy to research with Google & Wikipedia.
- - The second question could be a good one if given more detail and a specific example. Discussing PCB traces or EMC in an application with FPGA + some manner of radio is a perfect question for this site, but we'll need something more concrete, because there are thousands of possible and completely different applications.
- - The third question might be good for a self-answered Q&A or such, if rephrased a bit and also possibly with the term FPGA narrowed down a bit. For example, here's a similar such question I wrote about common beginner problems with CAN bus: https://electrical.codidact.com/q/276251. Something similar for FPGA might be nice.
- (Though it might have to be narrowed down to a specific tool chain? - I don't know a lot about FPGA personally and haven't written HDL since uni.)
- ---
- Regarding the power supply question, I agree that it wasn't great either. I could have closed that one as "too broad" as well, though the intention is obviously to write self-answered Q&A, in which case I would perhaps be more lenient. Because writing a good question when doing self-answered Q&A is _hard_! I've done a lot of such myself and one always underestimate the question, since the poster themselves think the answer is what's important.
- In this case I think the question could improved by giving a simple, specific example and then the answer could refer to that example as well.
- The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now.
- These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic and what questions that should be allowed. Nothing is set in stone and there's always the possibility to change things, if there is enough community consensus.
- As another example, the Software Development went with an entirely different and broader scope than SE, which allows some level of discussion and more subjective "best practice" questions.
- It's up to every user of the site to discuss the scope here an meta, what questions should we allow?
- We should also have in mind that people come here from SE with very different expectations:
- - Some thought SE was bad because of the corporate/profit model and how they treat their users & volunteers.
- - Some thought SE was bad because it was too elitist and "snarky".
- - Some thought SE was bad because it allowed too many basic questions from people without sufficient domain knowledge.
- And so on. The latter two reasons might collide and sating everyone will be hard.
- ---
- What I personally think was most problematic with the FPGA question is that is asks 3 rather unrelated questions at once:
- - The first one is pretty easy to research with Google & Wikipedia.
- - The second question could be a good one if given more detail and a specific example. Discussing PCB traces or EMC in an application with FPGA + some manner of radio is a perfect question for this site, but we'll need something more concrete, because there are thousands of possible and completely different applications.
- - The third question might be good for a self-answered Q&A or such, if rephrased a bit and also possibly with the term FPGA narrowed down a bit. For example, here's a similar such question I wrote about common beginner problems with CAN bus: https://electrical.codidact.com/q/276251. Something similar for FPGA might be nice.
- (Though it might have to be narrowed down to a specific tool chain? - I don't know a lot about FPGA personally and haven't written HDL since uni.)
- ---
- Regarding the power supply question, I agree that it wasn't great either. I could have closed that one as "too broad" as well, though the intention is obviously to write self-answered Q&A, in which case I would perhaps be more lenient. Because writing a good question when doing self-answered Q&A is _hard_! I've done a lot of such myself and one always underestimate the question, since the poster themselves think the answer is what's important.
- In this case I think the question could improved by giving a simple, specific example and then the answer could refer to that example as well.
- ---
- Finally, I strongly disagree that everything ever posted on the Internet has value by default. Experience from SE shows that the majority of the stuff posted there actually holds no value what-so-ever and can be safely deleted with no loss to mankind.
- The whole SE experiment ought to finally have killed the myth "there are no stupid questions" and replaced it with "there are some questions which aren't stupid".
#1: Initial revision
by
Lundin
·
2020-11-16T14:19:04Z (about 4 years ago)
The default scope in this EE community pretty much went with the same scope as the SE site. For now. These sites are new and most communities are still struggling to come up with what's off-topic and what questions that should be allowed. Nothing is set in stone and there's always the possibility to change things, if there is enough community consensus. As another example, the Software Development went with an entirely different and broader scope than SE, which allows some level of discussion and more subjective "best practice" questions. It's up to every user of the site to discuss the scope here an meta, what questions should we allow? We should also have in mind that people come here from SE with very different expectations: - Some thought SE was bad because of the corporate/profit model and how they treat their users & volunteers. - Some thought SE was bad because it was too elitist and "snarky". - Some thought SE was bad because it allowed too many basic questions from people without sufficient domain knowledge. And so on. The latter two reasons might collide and sating everyone will be hard. --- What I personally think was most problematic with the FPGA question is that is asks 3 rather unrelated questions at once: - The first one is pretty easy to research with Google & Wikipedia. - The second question could be a good one if given more detail and a specific example. Discussing PCB traces or EMC in an application with FPGA + some manner of radio is a perfect question for this site, but we'll need something more concrete, because there are thousands of possible and completely different applications. - The third question might be good for a self-answered Q&A or such, if rephrased a bit and also possibly with the term FPGA narrowed down a bit. For example, here's a similar such question I wrote about common beginner problems with CAN bus: https://electrical.codidact.com/q/276251. Something similar for FPGA might be nice. (Though it might have to be narrowed down to a specific tool chain? - I don't know a lot about FPGA personally and haven't written HDL since uni.) --- Regarding the power supply question, I agree that it wasn't great either. I could have closed that one as "too broad" as well, though the intention is obviously to write self-answered Q&A, in which case I would perhaps be more lenient. Because writing a good question when doing self-answered Q&A is _hard_! I've done a lot of such myself and one always underestimate the question, since the poster themselves think the answer is what's important. In this case I think the question could improved by giving a simple, specific example and then the answer could refer to that example as well.