Lately I've seen a phenomenon in the ResearchGate that has negatively impressed me. There are so many questions in several topics that in my point of view are just impossible to answer because they are not clear enough, information or details are missing, the author has no elemental background on the research field.
So I would like to discuss here why this happens and what kind of things should be present in a question in way that it could be answered .
This is a great question. I've also been a little confused by some of the very vague questions that I have come across on here. I've responded by trying to get them to narrow the scope to find out what they really want. In the few cases where I've engaged, it doesn't necessarily seem like a "click"-generation problem, but simply absent-mindedness because they assume that everyone will know what they mean without explaining themselves.
I do heartily agree with Dominique though, that the RG score system encourages people to respond to questions whether or not they have something to contribute. I've definitely noticed a trend of fairly empty responses to many of the more popular questions.
I really do not believe in something like "a cataloguing of best question and anwers". There are several inputs and outputs in questions and anwers. The one someone see is not necessary the best and most appropriated. I have found out good and bad insights among questions and answers, but even the bad ones sometimes are the most valuable - in order that it is necessary to know the wrong way to image good ones.
I do not believe that asking questions indicates that a person does not know the subject. Sometimes there are details so precise it is hard to find it, plus you ask people not for the articles, but for a direction, where to look. Off course there are questions where you think: how is that possible that this person is a researcher? it is a basic knowledge. Yes, it does happen. But more often people ask because they want to learn. they search for answers for their problems. They don't need anyone to guide them 24/7, they need just a direction shown. Isn't it better to see them ask here instead of finding next bogus articles with made up data? We had quite few of those, it's enough. I'd rather see questions, which mean that people search, then just silence. Plus, in the answers, you see different methods, attitudes. It leads to discussion and this is always a pro thing. And you can always learn something new which is ALWAYS a pro.
As for the original question: I value the most questions, where at least a bit of background is given. Let's say we see a question "is green paint good for fish?" No, it is not. You start 'digging' asking the original author question after question, then you learn he wants to paint his tank, not drown fish in the paint. question formed like "I want to paint my research tanks' background. is green a good colour so that fish do not suffer from it? if it does influence it, which shade should i use?" I wish questions were sometimes more precise. If I want to help, i want to be sure both me and the person asking (and people who answer) talk about same thing.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing