I was recently linked the following: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1284680/warning-about-amazon-ec2-urgent-if-you-use-this-service

In looking over many of the questions here, this site seems to have alot of questions About EC2. While the post in question is not directly a question, it should still not simply be "closed" because its not a "real question".

So, my question is: Why close an extremely important topic just because it is not a "clear and concise question"?

share|improve this question
meta.stackoverflow.com ? –  Tchami Aug 16 '09 at 20:08
Take the time to read the stackoverflow.com/faq. –  John Saunders Aug 16 '09 at 20:09
Yesterday we had Joseph Heller. Today, we've got Walter Cronkite. Awesome. –  Eric Aug 16 '09 at 20:21
This really grinds my gears. –  TheTXI Aug 16 '09 at 20:23
add comment

migrated from stackoverflow.com Aug 16 '09 at 20:12

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

4 Answers

Because this website (StackOverflow and it's sister sites) is set up specifically for "clear and concise questions".


Someone else had the same issue and he got told rightly for it as well:


Quoting my answer from the other topic:

"Your idea of what you want StackOverflow to be is obviously not shared by the vast majority of the community. This site was set up to be the end-all-be-all source for programming Q&A. If you have a programming question that actually has an answer, posting it will most likely get you an answer.

StackOverflow is not your personal blog. It is not your philosophical discussion and debate forum. If you are constantly posting things that get closed as "Not programming related" or "not a real question" or any of the other reasons, perhaps you need to reevaluate your question asking before you start pointing the fingers at the hundreds/thousands of users who get by perfectly fine under the current community standards."

share|improve this answer
Perhaps it's because hundreds/thousands of users aren't the type to give input like we are. –  Lance Roberts Aug 16 '09 at 21:15
If a large number of users aren't going to stand up and disagree, it is fair to assume that they agree. If the way things are being done now is not enough to cause them to revolt, then that is a silent endorsement. –  TheTXI Aug 16 '09 at 21:28
You're right that apathy is a silent endorsement, that's why I refuse to be silent, because I refuse to be apathetic. –  Lance Roberts Aug 17 '09 at 1:47
@Lance: Hell yeah you do. Or whatever. –  Eric Aug 17 '09 at 2:05
Fight The Power! members.cox.net/fantasychamp/power.jpg –  TheTXI Aug 17 '09 at 2:10
add comment

Regardless of how important the topic may be, StackOverflow is not a discussion forum. It is a Q&A site, and you did not ask a question.

Take the time to read the FAQ.

share|improve this answer
@Downvoter: here on meta, more than on SO, you need to say why you downvoted if you want to have an impact. Otherwise, you're a pebble in a lake, and the ripples will stop very soon. –  John Saunders Aug 16 '09 at 21:27
@John Saunders: I would think almost completely the opposite. Since more often than not we are taking positions on something, a silent downvote will generally be seen as "No I don't agree with you". Whether that is enough to give you clue about why they disagreed or not, I don't know. And you weren't the only one to get the DV. I am already under the assumption that Lance (since the OP is not on this site) went and DV'ed all of us at once before posting his own answer. –  TheTXI Aug 16 '09 at 21:31
@TheTXI: That was my guess as well, but I didn't want to assume it without giving Lance a chance to explain himself. –  John Saunders Aug 16 '09 at 22:11
add comment

Stack Overflow isn't a review site, nor a general discussion board. If you want such information, you need to acquire it from another site.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Because some people don't understand the importance of important information.

Next time, ask a question like "What critical problems are there with EC2?", and then post your own answer to it. This is an SO acceptable way of doing things.

share|improve this answer
Still not programming related. –  Ian Elliott Aug 16 '09 at 21:19
-1 for using Community Wiki to try and shield yourself from an answer you knew was going to get voted down. –  TheTXI Aug 16 '09 at 21:24
You're second paragraph is possibly reasonable, although more appropriate for serverfault rather than stackoverflow. However I think you're first paragraph is just wrong - it's not about importance at all. –  Douglas Leeder Aug 16 '09 at 21:59
"Important information" is about the most ridiculously subjective thing you could have possibly said. Do you honestly believe that the SO/SF/SU community should make an exception to posts because they are "important information"? The thousand other sites catering to this type of "important information" are not enough for you? –  JP Alioto Aug 16 '09 at 22:56
Yah, I would have to agree with TheTXI on the community wiki post. Your not using the site features correctly. –  Troggy Aug 16 '09 at 23:24
"importance of important information" Best line. –  Troggy Aug 16 '09 at 23:49
@TheTXI: I'm sure you wouldn't understand since you're in the outspoken majority, in a true democracy the minority opinions always get clobbered. –  Lance Roberts Aug 17 '09 at 1:46
@lance, what's your point? You don't decide the rules, you simply get the ability to enforce them. SO is clearly a dictatorship ruled by Jeff from his secret base. –  Ian Elliott Aug 17 '09 at 6:04
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.