Nowadays we see many questions are raised for discussion. Some of these questions hold no scientific value, others are very hard to understand, and many do not contribute to knowledge.
I think what is interesting in Rg is precisely many questions. Most of them are valuable, at times what is less valuable are the answers, that may have nothing to do with scientific spirit: observation, comparison, hypothesis. Once I asked a trivial question and was responded trivial answers: what is your favorite fruit? I thought researchers would gave us a vast panorama of world fruits, which wasn't the case. And there are so many scientific things to say about fruits, as the wasp that enters fig flower to pollenize it and turn it into fig fruit, or the jackfruit, that smells awful but is delicious. I realized I should have been more explicit in my question. But also, I thought people would feel uncomfortable saying they only love bananas. Whatsoever, to my sense, it revealed researchers should improve their diet with local fruit and vegetables.
I think what is interesting in Rg is precisely many questions. Most of them are valuable, at times what is less valuable are the answers, that may have nothing to do with scientific spirit: observation, comparison, hypothesis. Once I asked a trivial question and was responded trivial answers: what is your favorite fruit? I thought researchers would gave us a vast panorama of world fruits, which wasn't the case. And there are so many scientific things to say about fruits, as the wasp that enters fig flower to pollenize it and turn it into fig fruit, or the jackfruit, that smells awful but is delicious. I realized I should have been more explicit in my question. But also, I thought people would feel uncomfortable saying they only love bananas. Whatsoever, to my sense, it revealed researchers should improve their diet with local fruit and vegetables.
Questions have to be varied dealing with different topics. Only repeated questions should be ruled out.
Thanks for contribution. I agree that general non scientific questions have values for some and others are considered added values. But, some questions are really irrelevant to scientific research such as what is your favorite fruit? instead it should be asked what makes fruits more favorable than others? than we speak about color, size, smell, and other characteristics. The way the questions is framed is what defines its value to the scientific community.
RG admin must not intervene ... it is very difficult to conclude what is a good question and what is bad...
In RG we can ask a very precise question and we can add the background of the question in the description box for a better understanding.
however, many RG users ask question without any background and many RG users answer question without reading the background. moreover, some responses are not that related with the question.
Not RG admin, RG users can use RG smartly and take the advantage
Yes, in order to avoid trivial questions that are a waste of time and leading nowhere they should control what kind of question being asked!
Hi M. Awad
RG is highly unlikely to/ should not interfere with questions posted by members however trivial it may be. This is because the method/algorithm for filtering questions would be too hard a task to persue since questions deemed trivial/irrelevant to some may be highly patronized by others. Additionally, it is in fact most of these trivial questions that keep people on RG. Since like fb, RG wants more active people per given time, interfering will go against this objective.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking