3 Attributed Tom22's comment to Tom22
source | link

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques said, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence@Tom22 wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer""freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques said, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques said, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Tom22 wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

2 corrected a verb
source | link

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques wrotesaid, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques wrote, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques said, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).

1
source | link

At some point after I had collected several thousand points (I'm not sure how), I suddenly started to get in trouble for writing skimpy answers. Some individuals were not nice when pointing this out to me. Amazingly, I did not realize that many of my answers had been going to a queue of poor quality answers. The not-nice critiques wrote, "Someone with your rep should know better! Shame on you!"

So I revamped how I wrote answers, almost overnight. (Better late than never. I also learned about flagging.) Here's what I came up with for how to write a good answer:

  • I should back up my answer with some objective evidence. If I can't find any, then I should present logical reasoning. Technical terms used in the logical argument should be explained. Format into paragraphs, indented text, etc., for readability.

  • If I'm citing an authoritative source, I should include a relevant quote and a link and the name of the source (e.g. Cambridge Learners Dictionary). If I want my answer to look pretty, boldface plus hyperlink = authoritative-looking red text!

  • Under no circumstances should I cite Google's definitions, since we don't know where they originated, and we don't know when Google might change what it displays.

  • I should not, under fear of the wrath of Edwin (and I'm convinced he's right to insist on this), write an answer to an obviously poorly posed question that is about to get closed.

  • I should put myself in the shoes of the asker. If I intuit that the OP would benefit from an explanation of some related aspect, or from some usage notes, I should go ahead and add the supporting information, with examples as needed, written in a pedagogical yet respectful style.

  • If I have a bunch of words or phrases to offer for a word/phrase request, I should pick one or two to showcase and document. (Then it's okay to sneak in a few more words/phrases as brainstorming.)

Regarding what @Lawrence wrote about "freezing other people out from making nearly the same but more complete answer" -- if I think someone has written something correct but too abstruse to fix with a bit of collaborative editing, I will go ahead and write my own answer.

If I have supplemental material that doesn't fit into one or two comment boxes, then I write a supplemental answer, explicitly acknowledging the existing basically correct answer(s).