A little while ago I posed the following question - lightweight document indexing to handle less than 250k potential records. Badly.
The question was immediately leaped upon and labeled as soliciting "market research". This was probably because I included the word "potential" in the title of the question (always a red flag) and because at the tail end of the question I mused on whether anybody thought it would be worth pursuing if it came out that no such technology existed. Combined with the title, I'm guessing that somebody assumed I meant "as a commercial enterprise" and not as an open source solution. When I saw the comment that was made I immediately edited the question to remove the offending remarks, trying to salvage the question.
The question was closed within an hour and featured absolutely no discussion beyond the following comment.
"Please don't do your market research here. The question is off-topic here. You may have better luck asking it at onstartups, though you should read their FAQ first." - Oded
His closing vote was quickly followed by four additional close votes. Maybe I'm way off the mark here but this really seems to me like a close-vote dogpile.
The question was closed as off-topic but I fail to see how it didn't fall under at least one of these guidelines of the P.SE FAQ:
- algorithm and data structure concepts
- quality assurance
- software architecture
- software engineering
Based on my understanding of the P.SE FAQ, it also qualifies as a constructive subjective question.
At worst, the question might belong on StackOverflow but even then SO is for strictly for objective questions that have verifiable, factual responses.
- I should have phrased the title differently. My bad. This is an easy edit, honestly.
- I should have realized that somebody might mistake my intentions when I asked if it might be a viable project if an existing solution wasn't available. Again, my bad, and was fixed immediately.
- The question was closed before anybody took the time to really read the post.
- The question should not have been closed but rather, could and should have been edited to make it more palatable.