-1

From Can I ask for resource recommendations here?:

Resource requests are asking for specific resources that are relevant to the broader concepts. Links to tutorials and blogs can stagnate: if you want a Python tutorial for the particular concept you are trying to learn, it can grow out of date. Could you imagine stumbling across your question years later when Python 6 is all the rage, and ye olde Python 3 code is considered legacy technology that programmers grumble about maintaining just like we do with COBOL today? This is the core reason why this site focuses on conceptual problems that age well.

But this doesn't explain why questions asking for resources about conceptual problems that age well are off-topic. Can you explain more?

Another reason to reject resource request is that Stack Exchange is not designed to be a book, library, or link review site. However, I would say a portion of SE sites accept resource recommendation, e.g. Physics SE. I don't see how we are different to them to not apply their guideline on how to participate in resource request questions on site.

2
  • 2
    I don't understand what more you are looking for. In the question you linked to and quoted, the community decided that resource recommendations are off-topic. It does not matter that "many SE sties accept resource recommendations". We have decided not to and the reasons are outlined in the post that you linked to.
    – Thomas Owens Mod
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 14:37
  • I mean, you can ignore that part. I just want to understand why the community thinks that questions asking for resources about conceptual problems that age well are off-topic, while the site itself thrives for conceptual problems that age well.
    – Ooker
    Commented Dec 18, 2023 at 14:39

1 Answer 1

3

You cited just one paragraph of a larger Q&A, which may be questionable for "conceptual problems that age well" (note this is a very debatable category). Still that argument is far from being the only argument against such resource request questions, there are more in that post and the linked meta post, which presents as a central argument

Stack Exchange is not designed to be a book, library, or link review site. It just doesn't work well that way

Maybe a few (not "many", as you claimed) other SE sites have developed a different point of view on this as they seem to accept certain kind of resource requests, but our community has indeed a broad consensus that resource request questions don't belong here - regardless of their topic. That is especially true since ~2016, when the site name was changed and the scope of the site was heavily discussed and significantly narrowed down.

This is my observation of the closing patterns of our community, without rating it.

9
  • I agree many maybe too much, but if a few is less than 5, then I claim it's more than a few. I don't see how we are different to them to not apply their guideline on how to participate in resource request questions on site. The observation of the closing pattern is useful and I appreciate it, but it doesn't answer the why question
    – Ooker
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 1:33
  • 1
    @Ooker: even 10 would be few among 182 sites in total/today (of course, I haven't checked them all, but I guess you did not either). We are different in having a specific history of a long-winded debate about the site's scope over years, which ended where our community stands now. The current "no resource-requests" policy is clear and simple. One which would allow certain kind of resource requests would have to be a lot more complicated, since it must be very carefully designed to define exceptions for not running into the problems mentioned in those other posts ...
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 13:23
  • ... and it would also have to find a majority among our community members. And that's where any such proposal will IMHO fail (since I know our community).
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 13:25
  • ... dont' get me wrong, I am not totally against allowing some kind of resource request questions. Still a proposal for a site's scop change which convinces me must be a very good one, and even if it convinces me, it would not necessarily convince most of the other community members. For example, make a new meta question and try to suggest this, maybe with the same restrictions which Physics.SE uses - then lets count the up- and downvote this question will get ... (note on Meta, up- and downvotes usually mean agreements vs disagreements).
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 13:32
  • well, I have a high confidence that almost all science sites (24 sites ≈ 14% of total) allow resource request questions. That aside, why couldn't this question be that suggestion? I interpret the -1 vote on this question means disagreement, and the 1 vote on the answer means agreement, which I think aren't enough to conclude consensus.
    – Ooker
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 15:01
  • 1
    @Ooker: I interpret the -1 on your question as "shows not enough research effort" (disclaimer: I did not vote on the question yet), and the +1 on my answer either as "thanks for taking the time trying to answer my question" in case it came from you (or "thanks for having the patience to deal with this instead of me" if it came from Thomas. Still if really all science sites accept certain resource requests (check these), than you may use this information in real proposal for a scope extension, where the title and question clearly communicate what you are after, so people don't have to guess...
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 17:44
  • 1
    ... what you are after. Still don't forget, 14% means - 86% do not accept resource requests, still a clea majority. And - SWE.SE is not a science site.
    – Doc Brown
    Commented Dec 19, 2023 at 17:47
  • I understand the reasoning that SWE.SE is not a science site because SWE is a professional field, not a science field. However (1) there are other non-science sites that I know also accept resource requests. I can raise the number to 30 or even 35 (17% or 20%). Still not a majority, but be significant enough to consider a possibility that SE format doesn't hold back the practice, nor the practice harms the sites. (2) The common theme between them are academics related. They discuss "conceptual problems that age well". And this is the part that I would argue that has no difference to SW.
    – Ooker
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 2:51
  • As for the votes, that's one problem I see in the voting mechanism: so much ambiguity and room for interpretation. Even if I make a clearer title, how would I make sure that all the votes are to express agreement or disagreement? Plus that if this question doesn't attract much voting, then how the new one be different?
    – Ooker
    Commented Dec 20, 2023 at 2:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .