General Reference = general clairvoyance?

Question

This question asked what you call those words that sound like the sound they make. It was closed as general reference. Really!? How the hell is the guy supposed to look up the answer when he doesn't know the name of the thing he's supposed to look up? Someone please tell me the name of a commonly available reference work that can be used to trivially answer this question.

I know some people like to close-vote questions as GR when they think the question is "too basic," but even a basic question can't be looked up if you don't know what to look up. And this question really isn't even all that basic. "Onomatopoeia" is not "apple." It's a rarely used word that's hard to remember and even harder to spell. If SWRs are on topic at all here, it's difficult to see why this one wouldn't be.

Fortunately, Josh61 managed to give the definitive correct answer in the brief time this question was open. Let's reopen it and then protect it, so it doesn't just sit around collecting silly non-answers. Either that, or let's implement a new custom close reason:

general clairvoyance: This question could be easily answered using a commonly available reference, if you knew what to look up, which you don't. Go read Catch-22 and stop bothering us.

Answer 1

My problem with the "General Reference" justification for closing questions is a bit different from the one raised here by phenry: Too often people vote to close a question on that basis without doing any research into the poster's question themselves.

A case in point occurred yesterday. A poster with a reasonably strong track record at EL&U (1,710 points, 3 silver badges, 7 bronzes) submitted this question:

First use of “bunk”

My question is simple: Which came first, bunk as in "bunk beds" or "to bunk" as in to find a place to sleep? Almost suredly, the definition of one created the definition of the other by association, however I was wondering if anyone knew which came first. Thanks.

Within a few minutes of the question's appearing in the queue, a commenter (who likewise has a fairly strong track record at this site) posted this comment:

This seems like a general-reference question.

...and a few minutes after that, the poster deleted his question.

All in all, no harm was done, I suppose; but in checking a general reference (Merriam-Webster's Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary) during the brief period when the question was open, I ran into something odd: MW said that the word bunk is "prob. short for bunker" despite its being (by MW's reckoning) 81 years older than bunker (if we treat a word's first known occurrence in print as its date of birth). Baffled by this assessment, I consulted a second general reference (my 1985 edition of the OED) and learned that its editors considered bunk to be "Of unknown etymology"—this despite the fact that in the OED's estimation bunker was 67 years older than bunk.

A few minutes of general-reference research had turned up several interesting things: MW's weird theory that bunk came first but was probably derived from the later word bunker; OED's refusal to hazard an opinion about the etymology of bunk; and the two references' opposing views on whether bunk or bunker was the earlier word.

When I went back to the poster's question to note these facts, however, I found that the poster had already deleted the question. Because the MW–OED disagreement had piqued my interest, I went ahead and ran a Google Books search for bunk, bunks, bunker, and bunkers, to see what matches that resource would turn up. Last night, after some hours of investigation, I submitted my own question and answer about the relationship of bunk and bunker, focusing on the issues that I thought were most interesting. But I wouldn't have considered the question at all if not for the original posting.

If the OP of the "First use of 'bunk'" question had simply consulted the Eleventh Collegiate Dictionary, he would have found that the noun bunk dated to 1758, the noun bunker dated to 1839, and the verb bunk dated to 1840. If the OP had simply consulted the OED, he would have found that the noun bunk dated to 1815, the noun bunker dated to 1758, and the verb bunk dated to 1861. Either way, according to both references, he would have learned that the noun bunk preceded the verb bunk.

But it seems to me that if the commenter (whom I don't mean to pick on here) had checked those two general references instead of merely asserting that the question "seems like a general-reference question," he might have been struck by the inconsistency in the dates and in the disputed priority between bunk and bunker. Does anyone else see any irony in criticizing a poster for not consulting general references, without bothering to consult the general references either?

One thing I've learned from consulting multiple references in pursuit of answers to seemingly straightforward questions is that "general references" often disagree on questions of coinage date and etymology—and when such disagreements arise, the notion that consulting a "general reference" will resolve the question goes by the boards.

I recommend that anyone inclined to close a question involving etymology or coinage date as "general reference" take the time to consult at least two independent references first, to confirm that a consensus about those details actually exists. It wouldn't hurt, either, to hold off on closing such questions for, say, 12 hours after they post, to give other researchers time to check their own reference works.

Though I have had occasional success in reopening closed or on-hold questions, it's much harder to reopen a question than to answer one that hasn't been consigned to limbo in the first place.

In any event, I'd love to see a little less haste in condemning questions as "General Reference" and in pressuring posters to withdraw them. One of this site's best features is that it permits users to investigate and spell out the limitations, inconsistencies, and even outright errors that general-reference answers may include.

Answer 2

I was the first to closevote the onomatopoeia question, and I freely admit if it had been asked a couple of years ago I'd have cited "Too Basic" as the reason. Since that's no longer available, I chose the best of a bad bunch.

I don't accept that only things which can easily be looked up in one of the sources cited by our What good reference works on English are available online? question count as "General Reference". The first Google search term that came to mind for that question was grammar sounds like word, and I note that two of the first three results returned there include the relevant word in the "snippet" view (it was a "Chrome Incognito" search, to avoid being biased by my personal search history, and I frankly don't think "regional" bias would make any significant difference for a query using English words).

I'd also point out that questioners are expected to do "basic research" before asking here. Apparently the OP already knew he was looking for a grammatical term that "sounds like" anamatapic (he just didn't know how to spell it). If he'd tried searching for, say, grammatical term word sounds like, I imagine the relevant Wikipedia entry would be top of the results list in all regions.

It's also worth noting that the answer had already been posted when I closevoted (if it hadn't, I'd have posted a comment with the relevant information). I would never vote to delete the question (because it's not ridiculously Off Topic), but I really didn't see the point of keeping it open (or re-opening it). Realistically, how many usefully different ways can you say "anamatapic is a misspelling of onomatopoeic"?

---

TL;DR: I don't expect questioners to be "clairvoyant", but I do think that anyone who can't find the word onomatopoeia after just a few seconds Googling can't really be numbered among linguists, etymologists, and (serious) English language enthusiasts.

Answer 3

I too voted to close the question. But before I did, I saw the correct answer had been given in the comment section by two users and an answer had also been posted. How many answers of onomatopoeia do we need?

I also posted a link to an old ELU question with mnemonic tips so next time he has a better chance of spelling it right. Then (out of curiosity) I typed the OP's question, word for word in Google. The Wikipedia article was the top result, today it's Oxford dictionaries. I also posted a comment to that effect. I think the comments, and the answer posted by @josh61 were being helpful, friendly and sensible.

Remember, the OP only wanted to know the word onomatopoeia. Nothing else.

Before his edits the original question was

In our English lesson, we talked about words that are derived from sounds.

Our teacher said they are "anamatapic", but it seems I can't get the spelling right. Even google does not provide a good suggestion for a better spelling.

So now I am looking for the word that sounds like "anamatapic" and describes the professional term for words that sound like the sound. Everything's clear?

Does the above show research effort; it is useful and clear?

You could argue "yes" for all three points. Should it therefore be reopened? No. Because there are no other answers.

Answer 4

I posted a comment here earlier about how a Google search of the question's title on my computer led to the Wiki page. But I remembered -- a little too late to keep me from posting, though -- a time on ELU where I learned of regional differences in search. (If I'd read through the other comments here I would've remembered sooner... d'oh!) Although this time the OP noted in a recent edit that it held for their web results too, I know that doesn't always hold in general. My bad.

Onomatopoeia has a special significance for me. I recall learning it from one of the books/magazines I liked a lot as a kid. I remember one long car trip in particular where I read that word and talked to my fellow travelers about it, wanting to know how it was pronounced because I didn't really believe it was a word. The ensuing conversation led to other impressive vocabulary words, namely, tintinnabulation.

Because of this resonance I fell into the common trap of knowing how to verify the answer from the information given, but not really knowing how to deduce it from the same information. From my personal experience it felt like it was general reference... but my personal experience is not a commonly available reference. Besides, there are words I struggle with that other forum members see with similar/better clarity from their own experiences. So I think the request for a common reference to answer the question at hand (how to recover the proper spelling of a complex word) is a reasonable one.

But there are a few points a proponent of the hold might use which I think are worth considering.

Of the questions covered on ELU, definitions (although still subject to change in a living language like English) are among the more static. The resources that are authoritative, dictionaries and encyclopedias and thesauri, are plentiful, reachable and typically distinguishable from non-authoritative resources. So I don't think the Google Is Not a General Reference question, whose question focuses on the authority or credibility of the results, is as applicable here as it would be elsewhere.

And though the question is about converting a definition to a word, I see it as being different from others tagged as single-word-request, which tend to be the other way around -- wanting to know if a word exists for a definition. (I think I'd like to see this tagged as spelling too, but the tags applied have little bearing on the quality of the question.) I foresee questions about spelling possibly starting a vicious cycle of their own:

1. A user knows they're misspelling an existent but complex/esoteric word
2. The question is admitted and answered because there is no general reference that could remedy their mistake
3. A second user significantly later posts a distinct enough (and valid enough) misspelling of the same word

It would be as unfair to close the second one as GR as it was the first by the rationale discussed in this Meta question. If the two questions are distinct enough (the research of one misspelling didn't lead to the other post), it also seems unfair to close as duplicate. It looks to lead to debates on:

• What constitutes a 'valid enough' misspelling?
• Are some misspellings more valid than others?
• When is a word nontrivial/uncommon enough to justify a spelling question?

Answers to such questions need not be more than the spelling and a link proving its validity. And so ELU may get many questions that are highly similar in nature, soliciting short answers found without the aide of GR but containing little information outside of GR, and localized because they are helpful mostly to people who misspell the word similarly.

I think the best we can do in such a situation is treat neither as a bad question (being prudent with how we vote), but discourage the activity if we find we're getting a slew of different questions about the spelling of some word. Having a question go on hold can be a little jarring but having it done fairly and thoughtfully, with full consideration for the OP, has led to good resolutions.

As an aside: I'm very pleased with the responses all-around to the linked question. ELU and its moderators, as well as the OP, all handled this situation deftly and peaceably. :)

Answer 5

As one of the closers, I, too, will offer you a brief(er) response to "How the hell is the guy supposed to look up the answer when he doesn't know the name of the thing he's supposed to look up?"

The answer is, he's not. So tell him.

The OP asked his question at 9:46:19. Josh61 answered in comments at 9:49:10 as did Brian Donovan at 10:07:17. By the time I came along (16:53:36) it was, indeed, answered, and it is Gen Ref. It's one of the most well known words for words. Entire songs have been devoted to it.

One point I agree with, though, is that of trying to put oneself in the OP's position. I recently got chastised by an OP for suggesting that he google a well known phrase, as it came up in the first position on my search. He answered that his Chinese google search yielded no results. I was quite surprised (shows my tech-savvylessness).

To me, it's not a crime to close as Gen Ref if 1) it is GR, and 2) there is an answer in the comments.

Answer 6

In situations like the one that phenry brings up here, where a commenter provides the unmistakably correct answer and the question itself has no search or archive value, why can't we have the option to vote it or declare it "Closed: Answered in Comments"?

There is nothing controversial about the answer to the "anamatapic" question, and the commenter has helped the only person in the world who cares about the question as it is formulated, so (it seems to me) EL&U should be able to declare at that point, "Our work here is done."

My only concern about "Closed [or Put on hold] as Answered in Comments" is that voters might be tempted to cite that reason in instances where a question isn't really or fully answered in the comments beneath it; but that's a danger with any close or put-on-hold option, isn't it? At least with "Answered in Comments" we give the strongest reason why no one should object to the closure—and perhaps we encourage answerers to help out clueless questioners instead of telling them (the questioners) to try harder.

As a side benefit, "Answered in Comments" would reduce the size of the Unanswered Questions queue without requiring voters to vote up obvious answers. I suspect that many people answer exceedingly simple questions as comments because (1) they want to help the questioner, but (2) they don't think that the question or the answer rises to the level of deserving an upvote. That's my motivation at times, anyway.

I suppose that some users might have a philosophical or practical concern about encouraging bad questions by answering them; but EL&U gets boatloads of bad questions anyway, and the real question is how to dispose of them effectively and (if possible) helpfully.