Datasets:

bshada

/

hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com

like 0

1

2015-09-09T16:46:52.260

Should we have SR-style quality guidelines for questions and answers?

|discussion|answer-quality|question-quality|

<p>This site is different than most - we're an opinion based site. This topic is the reason 'shopping recommendations' were banned on Stack Overflow. If we don't want to become a spam center, I think we should have some fairly strict quality guidelines.</p> <p><a href="https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/">Software Recommendations</a> seems to be doing fairly well. Do we want to shamelessly steal its quality requirements? See their guidelines for <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-contain-enough-information">questions</a> and <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/356/what-is-required-for-an-answer-to-be-high-quality">answers</a>.</p> <p>The rules there are that a question must contain "enough information", and answers must have personal experience with the product and detail how it matches each requirement in the question.</p> <p>Is this what we want?</p> <p>If so, how ruthless should we be in deleting low-quality answers? On SR, I delete them on sight, with a comment inviting the owner to review the guidelines and post another answer. Is that what we want for this site?</p>

<p>For <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5/122">adaptation of guidelines from SR</a>, some of the changes are obvious - there will rarely be a recommendation that can be implemented or tried out at zero cost (open source equivalent). </p> <p>Others are not so obvious, but are just as important. For example, one immediate change that I think will be needed is the "one recommendation per answer" guideline from SR. Unless the hardware question is very specific, there will almost always be several viable recommendations to make based on trade-offs in terms of features, budget and the like.</p> <p>The verbosity and formatting guidelines are good, though early on I would adopt an attitude of editing to improve and/or commenting to suggest what to expand on or how to format correctly. If we set too strict a tone, it can lead to overzealous criticism, and that can destroy a fledgling community and discourage new users.</p>

2

2015-09-09T16:51:27.540

Are "X vs. Y" questions allowed?

|discussion|questions|scope|

<p>On SR, we decided that <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/70/46">&quot;X vs. Y&quot; is not a good question</a>. Thumbing through the example questions for this site on Area 51, I see a few of them:</p> <blockquote> <ul> <li><p>Do mechanical keyboards have any real advantage over traditional keyboards?</p> </li> <li><p>DDR3 vs DDR2 -- is either better than the other? If so, why?</p> </li> <li><p>Help to choose between Nvidia GTX 860M or AMD Raedon R9 M290X for a gaming laptop?</p> </li> <li><p>Do laser mice have any real advantage over optical ones?</p> </li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>etc.</p> <p>Are these questions on-topic here?</p>

<p>I would allow such questions.</p> <p>For the simple fact that the one who posed the question saved us some time on finding and recommending something for him, by narrowing the results to two, let's say 3.</p> <p>Also he knows his budget, preferences but not what's better than what. That is where some of us come in.</p>

14

2015-09-09T18:35:39.200

What should we call our chatroom?

|discussion|status-completed|chat|

<p>We have a <a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/28945/hardware-recommendations">chatroom</a>. It's currently called "Hardware Recommendations", which is the default name for a new site's chatroom.</p> <p>What better names are there? As one of the <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/223674/the-real-essential-questions-of-every-beta">Real Essential Meta Questions</a>, this is something we can tackle now.</p>

<p><strong>The Hardware Showroom</strong> <br>(or some variation of it)</p> <p>This site offers the best hardware on the market. Why not put it in a showroom?</p>

20

2015-09-09T18:54:48.263

How do we promote our site?

|discussion|

<p>Because some of the private betas are not active enough, it would be nice to talk about promoting our site.</p> <p>Do you have any interesting proposals?</p>

<p>Send private beta invites to some of your more technically-oriented friends, family, and acquaintances.</p>

23

2015-09-09T19:27:04.010

Should we use [sound] or [audio]?

|discussion|status-completed|tags|

<p>I just asked a question with the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/audio" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;audio&#39;" rel="tag">audio</a> tag, on top of an existing question using <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sound" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;sound&#39;" rel="tag">sound</a>. Which should we use?</p>

<p>The <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sound" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;sound&#39;" rel="tag">sound</a> tag has been remapped to <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/audio" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;audio&#39;" rel="tag">audio</a> &larr; (main tag)</p>

28

2015-09-09T20:40:32.467

Are DIY hardware recommendations allowed?

|discussion|

<p>Now, I have been interested in the maker and hacker community for a long time. I have learned about the Arduino and Raspberry Pi, etc. Are recommendation questions about such DIY hardware platforms allowed on this website?</p> <p>For example - "What are some good touchscreens for the Raspberry Pi?" or "What are some good Arduino Wifi boards?"</p>

<p>Agree with <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/29/122">Undo</a>, would add that you can often find consumer packages for the Pi, Arduino and others (especially as they become more popular). That would also be a perfectly valid Q&amp;A: i.e. what is a good starter kit for the Raspberry Pi 2, will the case allow for a camera attachment etc.</p> <p>There's also very little difference between questions like the ones you mentioned and others about building your own HTPC, gaming rig and the like which will certainly be popular and common on this site.</p>

30

2015-09-09T21:19:07.017

What to do when a question has an answer in another SE?

|discussion|

<p>What to do when a question has an answer in another SE?</p> <p>E.g. the question <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/50/40">Should I find a processor with &quot;hyper-threading?&quot;</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Intel Core i7 processor has a feature known as "hyper-threading." Quoting their <a href="http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">website</a>: </p> <blockquote> <p>Intel® Hyper-Threading Technology (Intel® HT Technology)1 uses processor resources more efficiently, enabling multiple threads to run on each core. As a performance feature, it also increases processor throughput, improving overall performance on threaded software.</p> </blockquote> <p>Of course, this sounds a bit like an advertisement, and it doesn't show whether it has any less desirable qualities to it, such as increased power usage.</p> <p>What exactly is hyper-threading? When should I buy a processor that utilizes this?</p> </blockquote> <p>is pretty much answered on <a href="https://superuser.com/q/122536/116475">https://superuser.com/q/122536/116475</a>.</p> <p>Options:</p> <ul> <li>the question should be closed</li> <li>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE</li> <li>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE + copy paste some fragments of it</li> <li>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE + copy paste all useful information</li> </ul> <p>Leaving a comment is not an option as comments on regarded as temporary on Stack Exchange.</p>

<blockquote> <p>the question should be closed</p> </blockquote> <p>No. The existence of a similar question on another Stack Exchange site has no bearing on the suitability of the question on this site.</p> <blockquote> <p>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE</p> </blockquote> <p>No. This is a question and answers site, not a link collection. A link does not make an answer.</p> <blockquote> <p>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE + copy paste some fragments of it</p> </blockquote> <p>Ok, as long as all the relevant fragments are copied. Do include proper attribution (quote formatting and a link to the author's profile).</p> <blockquote> <p>leave an answer with a link pointing to the other SE + copy paste all useful information</p> </blockquote> <p>Ok, as long as only the relevant fragments are copied. Do include proper attribution (quote formatting and a link to the author's profile).</p> <hr> <p>What really <em>should</em> be done is to <strong>answer the question in the way that's most relevant for <em>this</em> site</strong>. If the answers on the other site are interesting, then by all means do cite them. But we're here to make the best answers for <em>this</em> site.</p> <p>(Where <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/50">Should I find a processor with &quot;hyper-threading?&quot;</a> is answered is really Wikipedia. It isn't a good example.)</p>

37

2015-09-09T23:33:00.833

How can we detect (and deal with) spam?

|discussion|

<p>The premise of Hardware Recommendations is that Person A is looking for one or more product(s) that will satisfy certain criteria or complete a certain task. Persons B, C, D, etc. may write answers giving the details of products that can help Person A.</p> <p>The problem is that there is a bit of a hole here where spam can get in. If Person E is affiliated with the company that makes a certain product that <em>might</em> be related to what Person A wants, s/he can post it in an answer and get attention for that product. If there is enough similarity that it <em>could</em> be a valid answer, the answer will not be deleted, and Person E gets what s/he wants. The cycle can repeat.</p> <p>Person E can also self-answer, for added efficiency and a greater likelihood of putting an answer that matches the question well, thereby decreasing the risk of deletion.</p> <p>How can we detect and deal with spam? The first part may well be impossible, but the second is important. Going forward, it could be an issue.</p>

<p>On <a href="http://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com">Software Recommendations</a>, as a moderator, this is my approach: when I see something low-quality, I check it, and the user, for spam. Also, if I see a user promoting the same product or brand repeatedly, I'll check for spammyness.</p> <p>If I see signs of association, I'll either destroy outright or, if they show signs of becoming a <em>good</em> contributor, I'll send them a message and suspend. </p> <p>We <em>can't</em> detect all instances of undisclosed self-promotion. But that's okay: <strong>we don't need to</strong>. If we stick to a simple policy of deleting low-quality answers, every time, then we only have high quality, informative answers left. Also, we check for users promoting the same thing over and over and take care of those.</p> <p>Now, if we only have informative posts, voting will take care of the rest. The spammed product doesn't work? It'll get downvoted into oblivion and won't really be a good advertisement. But if it <em>does</em> do the job... why should we care? That's exactly what we want.</p> <p>Moderators, and users, on this site will get <em>very</em> good at detecting spam here. </p>

59

2015-09-10T17:03:07.617

What is required for an answer to be 'high quality'?

|discussion|faq|answer-quality|

<p>Seeing +15/-0 consensus on <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/should-we-have-sr-style-quality-guidelines-for-questions-and-answers">Should we have SR-style quality guidelines for questions and answers?</a>, I would say it's time to figure out what we require in answers.</p> <p>What is required for an answer to be 'high quality'? What do we do with answers that <em>aren't</em> high quality?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Copied from <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/356/what-is-required-for-an-answer-to-be-high-quality">https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/356/what-is-required-for-an-answer-to-be-high-quality</a> with major changes for Hardware Recommendations.</p> </blockquote> <hr /> <p>People answering questions in a manner that is extremely low quality and not very useful for future visitors would be the downfall of this site. These sort of answers can be broken down as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Link only answers</li> <li>&quot;I Googled your query and found this&quot; answers</li> <li>Answers that do not explain how their recommendation meets the requirements in the question</li> </ul> <p>The purpose of this meta post is to come to a clear community agreed consensus on what constitutes an acceptable answer, that can be linked to in future when asking somebody who has answered a question to improve the quality of their content.</p> <p>Like questions, high quality hardware recommendations (answers) should follow guidelines on both formatting/presentation and content.</p> <h1>Content</h1> <p>Be verbose.</p> <p>The asker has provided a list of requirements that the hardware must fulfill. It is the responsibility of the answerer to provide details on how their recommendation fulfills these requirements. Use pictures if the asker has asked for specific physical characteristics or specific user interfaces.</p> <p>Answers must be able to stand completely on their own. This means that linking to a product on an external website without providing commentary and details about that product will likely be grounds for removal of the answer. Specifically, always include the full name of the product and all relevant specifications <em>in your answer</em>.</p> <h1>Formatting</h1> <p><strong>Formatting is important</strong>, try to mirror the formatting in the question in your answer. The asker should have listed their requirements in a list, use their same list in the same order if you can when detailing why your recommendation meets their requirements.</p> <p>Make sure that points you feel are important are <strong>properly emphasized</strong> to aid readability and draw the asker's attention to the points you're making.</p>

61

2015-09-10T20:24:23.390

Should we use: [GPU], [Graphics-Card], or [Video-Card]?

|discussion|tags|

<p>As most gaming (or graphics editing work) towers contain some sort of graphics processing unit and they can be fairly pricey I suspect there will be several questions about them.</p> <p>Current Options:</p> <ul> <li><strong>[GPU]</strong> (Graphics Procsessing Unit)</li> <li><strong>[Graphics-Card]</strong> or <strong>[GraphicsCard]</strong></li> <li><strong>[Video-Card]</strong> or <strong>[VideoCard]</strong></li> </ul> <p>What tag should we use to describe them and would it be worth having an auto merged tag as in <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/23/should-we-use-sound-or-audio">this question</a>? Have I missed any if so please let me know.</p>

<p>After some thought I am leaning towards <strong>[GPU]</strong> for the following reasons:</p> <ul> <li><strong>[Video-Card]</strong> sounds like (although not true) it is only used for video editing and would not be used for games or 3D modeling.</li> <li><strong>[Graphics-Card]</strong> is more inclusive than Video card, however it still refers to a physical card (for example PCIe) that excludes <a href="http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hd-graphics/hd-graphics-developer.html" rel="nofollow">integrated solutions</a>.</li> <li><strong>[GPU]</strong> includes video editing cards, gaming cards and integrated solutions. On the flip side it also enables discussions about phone and tablet cards such as the <a href="https://developer.qualcomm.com/software/adreno-gpu-sdk/gpu" rel="nofollow">Andreno</a>.</li> </ul> <p>This <em>needs</em> to be a community decided item so I will leave this open to see if this is the best direction or if we should go another direction.</p>

72

2015-09-11T17:24:37.437

How long does it take to open public beta?

|discussion|

<p>How much time do we have before it launches to the public?</p>

<p>We've extended the private betas to last about <strong>three weeks total.</strong> In actuality, if you call the initial launch "week one", the evaluations and discussion happen near the end of week three. We extended the private beta another week because the logistics of launching a private beta and getting everyone together to wrap everything up in two weeks made the deliberations all but impossible. </p>

77

2015-09-12T03:52:40.947

Are hobby hardware questions on topic?

|discussion|scope|

<p>As a spin off from <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/50/what-type-of-hardware-is-allowed">What type of hardware is allowed?</a>, I'd like to discuss an area that doesn't <em>exactly</em> fit into the answers provided there.</p> <p>It is my understanding from the linked question that on topic questions need to be linked to a computer <em>somehow</em>, with more details still being worked out.</p> <p>Thus my question - is hardware that <em>can</em> be linked to a computer, but <em>isn't</em> during operation on topic?</p> <p>As an example, I asked a <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/171/training-drones">question about drones</a>. The type I am looking for isn't sophisticated, but does have the ability to capture data (video). Higher end ones can capture additional information (GPS coordinates, altitude, acceleration, etc). Some can be pre-programmed with a flight path. All of this data can be streamed in real time or downloaded later.</p> <p>I would not consider a drone an <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18/are-appliance-related-questions-on-topic">appliance</a>.</p>

<p>In your case specifically, that drone has a (fairly sophisticated) computer <em>onboard</em>, and in many cases it's being controlled by a phone, tablet, etc. I'd say that alone makes it on-topic. </p> <p>In a broader sense, though, it would make sense to me to allow thse 'hobbiest' questions. We naturally want professional questions - those are what draw the professionals in, and the professionals can answer both categories. I'd like to see more 'professional' questions than 'hobbiest' questions for that reason. </p> <p>However, it would be <em>hard</em> to come up with a way to objectively/consistently separate the two categories. Why not just let them exist anyway?</p>

79

2015-09-12T06:19:32.317

What is the right tag for a computer SMPS? power supply seems to be too generic

|discussion|tags|tagging|

<p>A desktop computer SMPS / power supply unit is widely known as SMPS and it referrers to the desktop computer Power Unit. On the other had a "power supply" or "power-supply" tag seems to be too broad and generic as the power supply term can be applied to anything that supplies the power.</p> <p>Can we consider the tag SMPS right in this context? </p>

<p>Tags are <em>meant</em> to be generic, so that questions in related subjects get grouped together. The place to specify further is in the question body.</p> <p>With regard to SMPS, I'd say that the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/power-supply" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;power-supply&#39;" rel="tag">power-supply</a> tag is fine for it - after all, it's a unit that supplies power.</p>

82

2015-09-12T20:15:21.350

Remove the [name] tag?

|discussion|status-completed|tags|tagging|

<p>Should we keep the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/name" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;name&#39;" rel="tag">name</a> tag?<br> The tag doesn't itself contain any information. Almost any post can have it.<br> There's only <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/202/58">one question</a> marked with this tag and the tag is useless there. </p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/status-completed" class="post-tag moderator-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;status-completed&#39;" rel="tag">status-completed</a></p> <p>Both the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/name" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;name&#39;" rel="tag">name</a> tag, and the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/type" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;type&#39;" rel="tag">type</a> tag that the question were tagged with, have been removed. They're both completely meta, provide no useful information to the question, and shouldn't be kept around.</p> <p>Based on what the question was asking, I've <em>created</em> the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/terminology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;terminology&#39;" rel="tag">terminology</a> tag to go on it.</p>

111

2015-09-14T18:21:58.657

What should we do to keep "answered questions" ratio high?

|discussion|

<p>Referring to the information on Area51:</p> <blockquote> <p>90% answered is a healthy beta</p> </blockquote> <p>At this moment we have 70%.</p> <ol> <li>Should we give a bounty to others people questions?</li> <li>How effectively get rid of bad questions to increase this ratio?</li> </ol>

<p>Adding on to <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/112/1">Andy's answer</a>, Software Recommendations recently graduated with an unheard of answer rate - 58%.</p> <p>We were able to do it because we focused on <em>quality</em>, not quantity. See my answer <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/834/46">here</a> for my thoughts on the subject when the site was young:</p> <blockquote> <p>I detest this statistic for this site. In fact, I like it rather low. Yes, if it was 40% I would be worrying. But if it was 90%, I would be suspicious that most of the questions here were too easy - not scoped well enough to be specific.</p> <p>In my view, the reason this number is low compared to other sites is that we want very specific questions - and sometimes (often!) software simply doesn't exist that fulfills all the requirements people put in their question. This is a good thing, as it means our questions are very specific!</p> </blockquote> <p>The vast majority of my feelings on that translate over to this site. We need to have specific questions if we're going to survive. Question quality first, then answer quality and count. Good, specific questions bring a smaller amount good answers, while overly broad questions bring a larger amount of bad answers.</p> <p>We get to choose. I'd highly suggest we choose specific questions over answer count.</p>

118

2015-09-16T13:14:50.857

What kind of hardware requirements are off-topic?

|discussion|scope|

<p>I've this one:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/270/15">What are the PC hardware requirements for OS X to run on?</a></li> </ul> <p>and it's off-topic, however another one related to hardware requirements is on-topic:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/274/multiple-monitors-hardware-requirements">Multiple monitors hardware requirements</a></li> </ul>

<p>Hardware Recommendations was created for questions seeking a <strong>*specific* hardware recommendation</strong> given a set of <em>definitive</em> requirements. The OS X question was off topic, but the multiple monitor question was salvageable. </p> <p>If the question is about general computing and hardware issues, it could be asked on <a href="http://superuser.com">Super User</a>; nevertheless, it is outside the scope of <em>this</em> site.</p>

121

2015-09-16T17:27:58.930

Do Amazon (or any vendor) reviews count as a gauge for recommendations?

|discussion|answer-quality|

<p>Can the hardware recommendations be justified/done taking Amazon reviews into account?</p> <p>For example: Questions like <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/267/laptop-for-front-end-development">these</a> which has an answer where multiple recommendations end in a tie with respect to the OP's desired specs.</p> <p>So, in that case, can the answer cite Amazon(or vendor) ratings as a tie breaker and recommend the product with better rating?</p> <p>Such answers look like an obvious possibility in the future, so wanted to confirm the possible consequences.</p> <p>Would that answer be considered genuine?</p>

<p>I don't see any reason <em>not</em> to include Amazon reviews in an answer, but we have to remember: <strong>You should have personal experience with a product</strong> before you recommend it. </p> <p>We shouldn't be a site that just searches for the title of the question and throws up an answer with a couple Amazon reviews taped on. We want to have answers from people that have actually used the product, not people who read some stuff written by people who actually used the product.</p>

145

2015-09-18T10:18:52.603

Merge [hdd] into [hard-disk]

|discussion|status-completed|tags|tag-synonyms|

<p>I noticed my first question which I had tagged <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hard-disk" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hard-disk&#39;" rel="tag">hard-disk</a> got retagged as <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hdd" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hdd&#39;" rel="tag">hdd</a>. I prefer the full name rather than the abbreviation. But most of all, I think one of those two tags should definitely be a synonym for the other.</p> <p>Which of the two does the community think should be merged into the other?</p>

<p>Done. A tag synonym mapping <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hdd" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hdd&#39;" rel="tag">hdd</a> &rarr; <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hard-disk" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hard-disk&#39;" rel="tag">hard-disk</a> was created.</p>

147

2015-09-18T13:36:19.083

Are full tag names or abbreviations preferred?

|discussion|tags|tag-synonyms|

<p>There are situations in which it is desirable to have a tag exist under both the full name and an abbreviation. I believe it we have consensus that in such cases one should be a synonym for the other.</p> <p>But which should be the canonical tag name and which should be the synonym?</p> <p>Two previous meta questions are pointing in different directions, so which is it?</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109/which-tags-need-to-be-cleaned-up">Prefer abbreviated tag names</a> or <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/145/merge-hdd-into-hard-disk">prefer full tag names</a>.</p>

<p>I don't think we're going to be able to come up with an effective rule to determine one way or the other. Sometimes it's logical to have the full name with the initialism as a synonym, other times it would just be silly.</p> <p>For examples, these I think would be best suited as having the full name for the master tag with initialisms as synonyms:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hard-disk-drive" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hard-disk-drive&#39;" rel="tag">hard-disk-drive</a> ← <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hdd" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hdd&#39;" rel="tag">hdd</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/solid-state-disk" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;solid-state-disk&#39;" rel="tag">solid-state-disk</a> ← <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ssd" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;ssd&#39;" rel="tag">ssd</a></li> </ul> <p>On the other hand, it would be silly to have these tags:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/high-definition-multimedia-interface" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;high-definition-multimedia-interface&#39;" rel="tag">high-definition-multimedia-interface</a> ← <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hdmi" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hdmi&#39;" rel="tag">hdmi</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/universal-serial-bus" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;universal-serial-bus&#39;" rel="tag">universal-serial-bus</a> ← <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/usb" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;usb&#39;" rel="tag">usb</a></li> </ul> <p>I think the most logical determining factor is popularity. Wikipedia is usually a pretty good indicator of the most common term.</p>

158

2015-09-21T21:10:18.163

Tag excerpt consistency

|discussion|tags|

<p>Going through the current tag excerpts we have in place, I've begun to find that certain tags need certain things &mdash; not all (in fact not many) need usage guidance.</p> <p>For example, I recently added an excerpt to <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/wearable-technology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;wearable-technology&#39;" rel="tag">wearable-technology</a> simply stating what wearable technology is. No usage guidance or anything else.</p> <p><strong>Hardware</strong><br> Tags for a type of hardware/technology don't need usage guidance because if you're asking about something, you're going to tag what that something is. If you're asking about a computer monitor, you'll tag <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitors" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitors&#39;" rel="tag">monitors</a>. It seems pretty straight forward to me. These only need definitions.</p> <p><strong>Properties</strong><br> However, tags for a property of hardware such as <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/durability" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;durability&#39;" rel="tag">durability</a> or <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/waterproof" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;waterproof&#39;" rel="tag">waterproof</a> should include usage guidance to clarify what they pertain to. I'm inclined to think these don't need definitions though.</p> <p><strong>Initialisms</strong><br> These, 95 percent of the time, need their initials to be written out for clarity. Not a lot of people know what things stand for, even tech gurus (e.g., <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/scsi" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;scsi&#39;" rel="tag">scsi</a>). They'll need a definition, usage guidance, or both because they can be a property/feature of hardware (e.g., <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/hdmi" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;hdmi&#39;" rel="tag">hdmi</a>), hardware itself (e.g., <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ssd" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;ssd&#39;" rel="tag">ssd</a>) or potentially both (e.g., <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/gps" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;gps&#39;" rel="tag">gps</a>).</p> <p>I'm a very organized person, so this is something that catches my attention. I wouldn't put it at the top of the to-do list though.</p>

<p>A tag wiki excerpt is important. It's the bit of the tag info that comes up in the tag autocompletion box; thus, it's the bit of info that allows users to decide whether it's an appropriate tag.</p> <p>The guidance in this question is useful guidance, and worth following. There are some additional points to make:</p> <ul> <li><strong>When writing wiki excerpts</strong><br> you should make sure that the tag is <ul> <li>defined (if it needs definition - acronyms are a good example)</li> <li>given usage guidance (use this for ...)</li> </ul></li> <li><strong>When reviewing wiki excerpts</strong><br> you should make sure of the above points too - you've got rejection reasons for a number: <ul> <li>no usage guidance? Reject it, as "lacks usage guidance"</li> <li>ambiguous? Consider renaming the tag (will need others' or mods' help) or adding to the excerpt yourself; evaluate the edit on its own merits</li> </ul></li> </ul> <p>Full wikis are slightly less critical, and have a greater degree of freedom, so I've largely left them out here.</p> <p>If you're struggling to write an excerpt, try this general format:</p> <blockquote> <p>For questions about [X], [short explanation of X]. [Additional details/guidance].</p> </blockquote>

161

2015-09-22T18:02:28.107

How would you rate HR at this moment?

|discussion|

<p>How would you rate HR at this moment?</p> <ol> <li><p>Is the community active enough?</p></li> <li><p>What problems may we encounter in the long run? </p></li> <li><p>What do you especially like/dislike about this site?</p></li> </ol>

<p>Needs more voting on answers. This may imply a need for more expertise, I'm not sure.</p> <p>Answers here require a lot of effort. But right now only 35 answers are scored higher than 6 - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but in the private beta people <em>should be voting</em> as we figure out what is good/bad/etc.</p> <p>Conversely, 64 questions are voted 6+.</p>

177

2015-09-23T23:19:34.627

How to handle questions with too few requirements?

|discussion|question-quality|down-votes|

<p>After seeing a few questions listing very few requirements, I realize we never actually discussed what to do if there is a low-quality <em>question</em> in terms of soliciting an overly-broad product recommendation. </p> <p>A lot of questions only list one or two broad requirement initially, but the comments to help the author are often lacking. Instead, the questions get a few down-votes right off the bat, and that's what caught my attention.</p> <p>When someone asks a question that doesn't quite fulfill the <em>purpose</em> of this site, what's the best course of action?</p> <p>I started by voting to close it as being too broad. Closures with guidance aren't necessarily permanent, so to me this seems like the first step. Next, I commented to ask if the original author could add more requirements and info about the hardware they were looking for. </p> <p><strong>What's the point in down-voting a low-quality question when you can ask them to improve it first?</strong></p> <p>I personally think questions should only be down-voted if they're either spam or other advertising, complete nonsense, or simply not a question anyone can answer. Other than that, there's a good chance a question can be improved by the author if they want the question to stand.</p> <p>I realize a lot of folks <em>don't</em> use down-votes like this. But I would like to start a discussion to see how we can better use these tools to help the overall quality of the site.</p>

<p>One of the problems with closing a question is that review is slow to come, and I think people have a reasonable expectation of not waiting hours once they have reformulated their question. I hold the best option would be to make a comment that the question is too broad and tell them to revise it, then close the question if after a reasonable amount of time it has not been revised.</p> <p>This allows people to keep their questions open and get at least once chance to reword things before they are shut out for a potentially extended period.</p> <p>I fear that if this is not done, the de jour response to being asked to reword your question in order to get it reopened will simply be to ask a fresh new question and attempt the rewording there - which surely is not the preferred behavior, yes?</p>

181

2015-09-24T10:36:18.287

What should our logo and site design look like?

|discussion|

<p>As all we know many beta sites look the same and it would be nice to be distinguished somehow. </p> <p>Jeff Atwood wrote a blog post about it: <a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/">http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/our-designer-in-residence-jin-yang/</a></p> <p>Maybe an idea stemming from the community will be taken into account ;).</p> <p>Do you have any interesting proposals?</p>

<p>You're in beta. Trust me, it will be a loooong time before you get out of it. Think about design when you go public, and then when you graduated.</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7BhCS.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7BhCS.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> <p>I think that looks beautiful.</p>

196

2015-09-26T11:08:11.347

Should questions like this be closed?

|discussion|questions|close-reasons|

<p>Recently, we had <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/455/8">this question</a> about alternatives to the Raspberry Pi. It's answerable by a quick Google search, and by the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/186/8">requirements for questions</a> that Robert Cartaino defined, is not specific enough to warrant being a question here yet.</p> <p>I've voted to close it using the reason Robert defined in the same answer. The question, however, is this:</p> <p>Should we <strong>close</strong> or just <strong>heavily downvote</strong> questions like this?</p>

<p>"Some alternatives" isn't a good fit for a Q/A.</p> <p>There's no indication as to why the Raspberry Pi isn't a good fit, so... what is their actual question?</p>

203

2015-09-28T01:49:38.310

How should we deal with questions asking about what hardware to use for something?

|discussion|questions|

<p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/463/155">This question</a> was just asked. The OP is asking about how to achieve something and needs a recommendation of what hardware to use in the first place rather than a recommendation of a certain product.</p> <p>Firstly, at the time of writing this, the question doesn't have much to work with, so it should be closed as too broad. However, if the OP were to add more info about what needs to be done, budget, ideal specs, etc., I want to say this could possibly pass as on-topic.</p> <p>Secondly, the question seems to be asking about a sort of DIY situation which isn't on-topic but at the same time asks about what to use. Kinda tricky.</p> <p>So should questions like this be allowed through (keeping in mind that they, of course, still need detail)?</p>

<p>As written, I think the question is broad. </p> <p>The user has not provided much more to go on than a case brand and a vague reference to LinusTechTips. If I were to guess, I'd guess Linus Torvalds, but "tech tips" doesn't seem to be what he's know for. </p> <p>"Can someone recommend a way to achieve this?" is not a product recommendation question. It does not feel like this question falls into the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139/is-a-scope-of-product-recommendations-pre-purchase-inquiries-agreeable">"pre-purchase inquiries"</a> either. It feels more like a "I saw this cool thing, how do I make that, but better?" question. </p> <p>The question <em>does</em> mention LED lighting and power supplies, but doesn't provide any more details than that. I believe the user needs to do some more research and return when they can provide more details and then we can provide recommendations for lighting or power to the computer case.</p>

205

2015-09-28T14:10:37.487

What is required for a question to be 'high quality'?

|discussion|faq|questions|question-quality|

<p>This is the question version of <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-required-for-an-answer-to-be-high-quality">What is required for an answer to be &#39;high quality&#39;?</a></p> <p>_{<em>(It is modeled off of <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/336/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-contain-enough-information">What is required for a question to contain "enough information"?</a> from <a href="https://softwarerecs.stackexchange.com/">Software Recommendations</a>)</em>} </p> <p>One of the problems that Hardware Recommendations has had during it's short beta period is vague and unresearched questions. These have been closed as either "Too Broad" (or a <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/189/should-we-have-a-custom-too-broad-off-topic-reason">custom "Too Broad"</a>) or "Unclear what you are asking". The goal of this question is to provide a single location for future visitors to see what our standards are for questions to remain open on this site. This question is not for defining the <em>scope</em>, but for defining the <em>content</em> of the question.</p> <p>What is required for a question on Hardware Recommendations to be high quality?</p>

<p>A question on Hardware Recommendations has <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139/is-a-scope-of-product-recommendations-pre-purchase-inquiries-agreeable">one of two goals</a>:</p> <ul> <li>A request for a product recommendation, OR</li> <li>A request for information that will lead to a product decision</li> </ul> <p>This means that Hardware Recommendations is not here to:</p> <ul> <li>Provide technical support of hardware</li> <li>Provide step-by-step instructions for Do-It-Yourself installation</li> </ul> <p>There is one major exception to questions that request information:</p> <ul> <li>General advice-type questions. These are <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/343/do-we-still-want-general-advice-questions">out of scope</a> because they don't necessarily lead to a concrete decision, and go out of date quickly.</li> </ul> <hr> <p>Your question on Hardware Recommendations should:</p> <h3>Clearly define requirements</h3> <p>You are looking for a piece of hardware to do something. Define what the hardware must do and must not do. These requirements need to be objective (e.g., "must be less than $100" is good; "must be cheap" is bad).</p> <p>Identify optional requirements. Not all hardware is created equal. If you would like the hardware to do something, but it isn't required, state that. These "nice-to-haves" will influence the types of recommendations that you receive.</p> <h3>Show previous research</h3> <p>Have you already performed a search for hardware that meets your requirements? What did you find or not find?</p> <p>If you've already searched but you don't share the results of that search, it's probable you'll receive recommendations for hardware you've already rejected. This wastes your time and ours. By sharing your previous searches and reasons why the resulting products of those searches don't work, you allow us to provide more relevant recommendations to solve your problem.</p> <h3>Provide relevant details <em>in the question</em></h3> <p>When you are providing information about your existing device, that information should be in the question. It should not be behind a link that shows specifications. Having this information in the question is important, because it allows the information to be easily accessible to others even if the link stops working.</p> <h3>Include a good title</h3> <p>The title should briefly summarize your goal in a few words and mention only one or two of the most important requirements (e.g., "25-inch monitor under $150")</p> <p>See <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10647/how-do-i-write-a-good-title">How do I write a good title?</a> for tips on writing an effective title.</p> <h3>Make use of tags</h3> <p>Apply tags that categorize the type of hardware you are looking for (e.g., <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laptop" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;laptop&#39;" rel="tag">laptop</a> or <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/graphics-cards" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;graphics-cards&#39;" rel="tag">graphics-cards</a>). Provide additional tags to narrow the scope of your request. Perhaps <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/ios" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;ios&#39;" rel="tag">ios</a> or <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/windows" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;windows&#39;" rel="tag">windows</a> is appropriate if the hardware needs to work with iOS or Windows. Also consider physical traits your question is focusing on such as <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/durability" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;durability&#39;" rel="tag">durability</a> or <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/waterproof" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;waterproof&#39;" rel="tag">waterproof</a>. Look at existing tags on similar questions and check the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/tags?tab=name">tag wiki</a> to understand what a tag should be used for. Try not to use tags that have a large scope (such as <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/pc" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;pc&#39;" rel="tag">pc</a>) without also adding some more specific tags - that helps people who are interested find your question to answer.</p> <h3>Not be too broad</h3> <p>Your question should ask for a very <em>specific</em> piece of hardware that matches your specific requirements. Questions that ask for more than one piece of hardware at a time tend to get closed because they're too broad for the community experts to answer in one go. Instead, try splitting your question out into one question per piece of hardware - this also enables you to tag them differently so the relevant experts can find them.</p>

207

2015-09-28T14:27:01.940

Merge [notebook] into [laptop]

|discussion|status-completed|tag-synonyms|

<p>I propose merging <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/notebook" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;notebook&#39;" rel="tag">notebook</a> into <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laptop" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;laptop&#39;" rel="tag">laptop</a> and making an appropriate synonym.</p> <p>There are currently 3 <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/notebook" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;notebook&#39;" rel="tag">notebook</a> questions and 5 <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laptop" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;laptop&#39;" rel="tag">laptop</a> questions. All are referring to the same type of hardware.</p>

<p>Done.</p> <p>A synonym mapping <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/notebook" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;notebook&#39;" rel="tag">notebook</a> &rarr; <strong><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/laptop" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;laptop&#39;" rel="tag">laptop</a></strong> (main tag) was created.</p>

211

2015-09-29T09:17:49.093

Should location be required or recommended in questions?

|discussion|questions|

<p>I've seen this topic come up a few times here and there over the past week or two, but I guess no one asked yet.</p> <p>Location can sometimes make a big difference in what hardware is available in a certain region, so my thinking is we should start strongly encouraging the inclusion of a general location (country usually works) so people can recommend hardware easier. If we really wanted clarification, we could <em>require</em> a location.</p> <p>Including a location can also clear up any question of what currency the OP uses. A good example of this is the distinction between U.S. and Canadian dollars.</p> <p>So should location be a part of questions on this site?</p>

<p><strong>Recommended, not required.</strong></p> <p>It's not absolutely essential to have the location in a question - unlike the specific requirements that we do mandate, location doesn't influence what product fits the poster's specification. For that reason, we shouldn't be <em>requiring</em> a location.</p> <p>However, there are going to be plenty of cases where a location helps - in distinguishing currencies (though one assumes that the OP will specify their native currency in any pricing requirements they have), in working out what's available where, etc. For <em>that</em> reason, we should <em>recommend</em> that a location is included, because it will help us give better answers tailored to the specific situation.</p>

226

2015-10-01T21:02:07.493

Intel "Inside everywhere"

|discussion|

<p>Unusual question came up on our website:</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/498/tempest-proof-pc-notebook">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/498/tempest-proof-pc-notebook</a></p> <p>What do you think about questions like this? Can it be taken seriously?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Can it be taken seriously?</p> </blockquote> <p>Some people might be able to. I can't.</p> <p>Speaking for this specific question... I don't know what he wants. A computer? A computer case? That is also a faraday cage? A computer... without a... processor? He hasn't defined what 'TEMPEST-proof' means. I've voted to close it as unclear.</p> <hr> <p>In general, though, if someone can clearly define their requirements, even if it's a tinfoil-hat person, I think the question should be okay. If he'd asked for a 'computer inside a faraday cage that runs <em>OS</em> and doesn't have a processor made by <em>company</em> that has at least <em>x</em> GB RAM and such'... then fine. I'd be inclined to say that's on topic. </p>

238

2015-10-03T18:30:47.620

How to avoid decreasing user activity?

|discussion|

<p>At this moment we have 59 visits/day (one of the lowest rates since the start of the private beta).</p> <ol> <li><p>When Community Promotion Ads can be launched?</p></li> <li><p>How to encourage users to get involved?</p></li> <li><p>Should we promote HR on Area51? I mean inviting users to participate and help us.</p></li> </ol>

<p>There is an <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/227007/what-is-the-typical-growth-pattern-of-a-new-beta-site-in-the-first-few-weeks">excellent answer</a> by Gilles, on Meta.SE that talks about the growth pattern of a community. </p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/LUOS5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/LUOS5.png" alt="Site Activity"></a></p> <p>A dip in activity after the private beta is common. Quoting from that answer:</p> <blockquote> <p>The sites that fail in private beta start are mostly the ones that peter out on day 2. The sites that fail in public beta are the ones where there is no growth at all and the existing community drifts off. The flat bit at the beginning of the public beta can last for many months; as long as an engaged community remains active, there isn't really a time limit.</p> </blockquote> <p>This nicely fits in with the <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/257614/graduation-site-closure-and-a-clearer-outlook-on-the-health-of-se-sites?lq=1">new graduation announcements</a> and how SE looks at site outlooks:</p> <blockquote> <p>Thanks to many devoted users, it’s grown clear that smaller SE sites can do a great job of maintaining themselves and producing high quality Q&amp;A. Not every site is going to be a blockbuster success, but our small sites are serving their own communities well. We’re proud of you, and we want you here.</p> <p>What does this mean? <strong>If there's enough moderation for a public beta site to consistently remain free of spam, for flags to be cleared, and for our Be Nice policy to be upheld, your site will remain open.</strong> However, if community leaders drop off, flags sit without being addressed, and we can’t find any suitable volunteers to step forward, the site gets closed.</p> </blockquote> <p>Our job, at this point, is to keep our site filled with high quality posts. With that, we work on promoting it in whatever ways we decide are appropriate for the community. The combination of promoting the site and our continued involvement, will provide the useful Q&amp;A site we are striving to be.</p> <p>It's not always <a href="https://communitybuilding.stackexchange.com/">easy</a>, but I don't see a reason to be discouraged about anything at this point. We have an active base to answer questions. We have an active base that is working behind the scenes on Meta to grow and guide the site. We have an active group of users in the chat room to discuss the site, life in general and my need for a very specific piece of hardware:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/24398733#24398733">I'm looking for a piece of hardware that can torch leaves on the ground but not light my house or the trees on fire.</a> </p> </blockquote>

246

2015-10-05T03:30:02.770

How do we feel about self-answering?

|discussion|

<p>As far as I know, we haven't had this happen yet, but <em>what if</em>? Would it be acceptable?</p> <p>I ask this because to me there is a grey area in the posting guidelines when it comes to something like this. If this site is for asking <em>others</em> for recommendations, is it okay for <em>me</em> to recommend something to <em>myself</em> so others can benefit?</p> <p>But at the same time it makes sense to do this simply because you might want everyone to know of a hard-to-find product that matches extremely specific requirements, and waiting for someone else to ask about it wouldn't happen.</p> <p>This topic isn't anything too important, but better to ask than not ask.</p>

<p>Self-answers should be allowed for the simple reason that if people are truly searching for hardware that meets specified criteria, they are the ones that ultimately decide if their needs have been met and how they were best met. </p> <p>If nobody responds to their question, or the answers are of poor quality (not all specifications met), or the OP finds a better solution (extra features that were not specifically required), of course we want them to post that information for others.</p>

249

2015-10-05T17:16:57.063

Merge [headset] into [headphone]

|discussion|status-declined|tag-synonyms|

<p><strong>I've retracted this request. enderland has explained the difference between the two pieces of hardware in his <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/250/57">answer</a> and why they shouldn't be merged. Now that I know the difference, I agree with his answer.</strong></p> <p><strike>I propose merging <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/headset" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;headset&#39;" rel="tag">headset</a> into <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/headphones" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;headphones&#39;" rel="tag">headphones</a> and making an appropriate synonym</p> <p>There are currently 2 questions with the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/headset" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;headset&#39;" rel="tag">headset</a> tag and 3 questions with the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/headphones" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;headphones&#39;" rel="tag">headphones</a> tag. These are all referring to the same type of hardware and the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/headset" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;headset&#39;" rel="tag">headset</a> questions even use "headphone" within the question.</strike></p>

<p>Headphones are distinct from headsets.</p> <p>They might be related, and in some cases the same, but they do not serve the same primary purpose.</p> <p>For example, nearly all headphones will not work as headsets. Making it a synonym seems inappropriate in this case.</p> <p>A headset requires some sort of microphone input. It's intended to allow communication into the system.</p> <p>Headphones have no such requirement. They are primarily intended to listen to content.</p> <p>Many headsets may work as headphones, but most headphones will not work as headsets.</p>

251

2015-10-06T11:42:01.413

How do we deal with the product photos?

|discussion|

<p>As all we know, copyrights may vary a lot. Do we want to make a general thread and collect permissions from various companies to show their photos? I do not mean individual images, only the whole collections. Sometimes they publish galleries with a huge collection of photos that can be very useful on our site. </p> <p>Example: Apple Products <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/products/" rel="nofollow">http://www.apple.com/pr/products/</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Usage Agreement Subject to the terms of this Agreement, you may use the Image solely in whole for editorial use by press and/or industry analysts. This right to use is personal to you and is not transferable by you to another party. The Image cannot be used to promote or sell any product or technology (such as on advertising, brochures, book-covers, stock photos, t-shirts, or other promotional merchandise). You may not alter, or modify the Image, in whole or in part, for any reason.</p> <p>As between you and Apple, Apple is and shall remain the sole and exclusive owner of the Image. You will not delete, alter, or obfuscate any proprietary legends relating to the Image, and each use will be accompanied by the applicable proprietary attribution shown next to the Image.</p> </blockquote> <p>Are we industry analysts?</p>

<p><strong>It is not our job, as a community, to police for copyright violations.</strong> We are not the owners of the copyright, thus we don't know how an image is "allowed" to be used.</p> <p>There was a <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/94465/should-moderators-enforce-ndas-for-software-vendors">Meta.SE post</a> about how users should enforce NDAs. This is similar.</p> <blockquote> <p>First, Stack Exchange, Inc (hereafter SEI), is not party to such agreements. Second, making any effort to enforce third party agreements may put SEI in a position of being liable for NDA violations it misses.</p> </blockquote> <p>The same logic applies here. If we do start attempting to enforce this, even as a show of good faith, when we inevitably miss something Stack Exchange may be liable. </p> <p>A <a href="http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/10253/when-do-network-moderators-delete-questions">similar question</a> was asked on Math.SE as well. An answer by another moderator starts with this:</p> <blockquote> <p>SE has told us about copyright is that it is not our job as moderators to enforce it. Copyright can be rather complicated and I don't know enough about it to correctly deal with it. So copyright stuff is something that we leave entirely to SE (plagiarism is different, we enforce our own rules there, which is different from copyright law).</p> <p>The guidelines for anyone that wants to remove a post that violates their copyright has to file a DMCA takedown notice and SE executes them. One important point here is that SE has absolutely no room for judgement here, they have to blindly execute the takedown notices to qualify for the "safe harbor" part of the DMCA. So bringing in a local mod makes no sense if there is no room for any informed decision anyway.</p> </blockquote> <hr> <p>If someone wishes to protest the posting of an image due to copyright reasons, there are legal actions they can take. They can file a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DMCA</a> complaint to Stack Exchange. Stack Exchange will then deal with the post as appropriate. </p> <hr> <p><strong>We, as a community, should strive to post content we are entitled to post.</strong></p> <p>It is also important to remember that Stack Exchange is a U.S. company. As such, there are <a href="http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Fair Use</a> arguments that can be made for single images. This doesn't prevent a DMCA take down from occurring, but it does provide one avenue of justification for using images under copyright.</p> <p>Important points about Fair Use, from the <a href="http://copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US Copyright Office</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>(1) Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.</p> <p>(2) Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.</p> <p>(3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.</p> <p>(4) Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.</p> </blockquote>

258

2015-10-07T19:41:19.007

Merge [monitor] into [display]

|discussion|status-declined|tags|tag-synonyms|

<p>I have been looking at tags to clean up, and I came across the tags <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/displays" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;displays&#39;" rel="tag">displays</a> (6 questions) and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitors" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitors&#39;" rel="tag">monitors</a> (8 questions). Most of the questions are asking for the same hardware. One monitor question is actually about <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/179/60">baby monitors</a>.</p> <p>When I hear "monitor", the first thing that comes to mind is a computer monitor, which isn't the only type of display. Therefor I am proposing that we merge monitors into displays, as a monitor is a type of display. </p>

<p>There are a few ways I can see this working out.</p> <p><em>Display</em> is essentially a synonym for <em>screen</em>, and a <em>monitor</em> is a type of <em>screen</em>, so <em>monitor</em> is already just a subset of <em>display</em>. So should we get rid of <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitor" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitor&#39;" rel="tag">monitor</a>? I say no. A monitor is a specific piece of hardware used to see and interact with a computer. This makes it an essential tag to the site. <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/display" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;display&#39;" rel="tag">display</a> covers a much wider range of <em>screens</em> that could be on anything from a computer's fan controller to a smartwatch &mdash; I wouldn't necessarily call these monitors.</p> <p>So to merge <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitor" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitor&#39;" rel="tag">monitor</a> &rarr; <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/display" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;display&#39;" rel="tag">display</a>, you would have to argue that monitors themselves aren't a major piece of hardware this site focuses on.</p> <p>If you wanted to merge <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/display" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;display&#39;" rel="tag">display</a> &rarr; <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitor" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitor&#39;" rel="tag">monitor</a>, you would have to argue that a monitor is absolutely any type of screen on any kind of hardware. This is a big stretch in my opinion.</p> <p>I think we should keep them as is because they both refer to certain things. However, if we do this, we need to work on cleaning them up and clarifying their meanings because we wouldn't be here if they were already like that.</p> <hr> <p><strong>Edit</strong><br> Based on the definitions I gave for each tag above (in the first paragraph), I have come up with simpler definitions:</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/monitors" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;monitors&#39;" rel="tag">monitors</a> &mdash; any standalone screen that isn't physically a part of another component. The obvious example is a computer monitor you connect to a computer.</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/displays" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;displays&#39;" rel="tag">displays</a> &mdash; any screen integrated into a device. Good examples are <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/421/155">kiosk screens</a> and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/522/155">e-reader screens</a>.</p>

265

2015-10-08T16:22:00.450

What is Hardware?

|discussion|faq|scope|

<p>Not hardware, but Hardware.</p> <p>We've <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/139/is-a-scope-of-product-recommendations-pre-purchase-inquiries-agreeable">half-defined our scope</a>, thanks to Robert. The other half of defining our scope is an issue that's been sitting around since Day 1, and one that I've seen plenty of opinions on.</p> <p><strong>What is Hardware?</strong></p> <p>I.e. what types of questions do we allow here? Computers? Electronics? Digital electronics? Related hardware like desks or wrist rests or monitor stands? Anything computer-related?</p> <p>Put your idea of Hardware in an answer, if it doesn't already have one. Vote for the scope you want; don't vote on a scope you wouldn't mind; downvote a scope that you think would harm the site, drive people away, etc. Give it a couple of weeks and we should have a good idea of what the community here wants.</p>

<p>I agree with @Undo's answer, but want to add a bit more to the on-topic section. I think things <em>related</em> to hardware should also be on-topic, <em>as long as it was specifically designed to be used with hardware</em>. Things like monitor stands, mouse pads, smartphone cases, styluses, laptop bags, etc. Obviously, if a question is just asking for a mouse pad, it is off-topic as too broad. But if it is asking for a mouse pad that is a certain size, has a wrist rest, and doesn't easily move would be on topic.</p> <p>A desk would still be off-topic, as it wasn't designed specifically to be used for a computer.</p>

275

2015-10-12T11:07:43.230

How to deal with frequently fluctuating product prices?

|discussion|

<p>In <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/613/102">this answer</a>, I linked to a product on Amazon to show that its price meets the question requirement. Two days later, the price dropped around 15USD. Luckily, in this case, it didn't contradict the question requirement, though now the price in the answer is different than that on the store page.</p> <p>My question is about what to do on the flipside. When someone posts an answer for a product, then the next day, the price rises such that it crossed the asker's threshold. Of course that would vary from case to case, but wouldn't the site benefit from a general guideline? </p> <p>How about posting answers with prices of products that are temporarily on sale at the time of posting. Should it be discouraged?</p> <p>Lastly, is it possible (and is it a good idea) to embed product links in answers so that the prices are updated along with the store page?</p>

<p>Price fluctuation is the nature of retail and capitalism. The goal is always to make a buck and often times that buck comes at the expense of a competitor. </p> <p>Our goal should be to answer the question <em>now</em> with prices <em>now</em>. You can mention that it is "on sale" at a certain retail location, but I think it's also important to mention the usual price, because a sale lasts a limited period of time.</p> <p>In several of the answers I've provided, I've intentionally <em>not</em> posted a sale price and instead listed the full retail price. In my mind this does two things:</p> <ol> <li>Provides the original poster with a price they'll be paying if they wait to make a purchase</li> <li>Allows them to see that the product is on sale when they click the link I provide. I said it was $X. The link is showing $X-$Y. It must be on sale. </li> </ol> <p>For your last question about live updates, I do not believe this is possible for many places. If a retail location provides a live updating image (much like the flair here), then it can be done. However, the answer should be about much more than price. If your explanation says anything about price and the live updating thing contradicts it, you may get questions in confusion.</p>

283

2015-10-13T15:06:25.010

Proposal: Require computer specs to be posted in the question instead of behind a link

|discussion|question-quality|

<p>I'd like to propose a quality guideline to help prevent confusion in the future.</p> <hr> <h3>Proposal</h3> <p>Users posting information about their computer need to have the components listed in the question itself not behind a link. </p> <hr> <h3>Reasoning</h3> <p>Other areas of Stack Exchange require all details relevant to the question be posted on site. This is to make viewing the details easier for all. It also prevents loss of information, should that become a <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/300916/i-estimate-10-of-the-links-posted-here-are-dead-how-do-we-deal-with-them">broken link</a>.</p> <p>On Stack Overflow, for example, there is a close reason that explicitly states that code must be included in the question:</p> <blockquote> <p>Questions seeking debugging help ("why isn't this code working?") must include the desired behavior, a specific problem or error and the shortest code necessary to reproduce it <strong>in the question itself</strong>. Questions without a clear problem statement are not useful to other readers. See: How to create a Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example. </p> </blockquote> <p>I propose a similar requirement be utilized here. If we require system specs to make a recommendation, they should be in the question.</p>

<p>A policy? <strong>Absolutely</strong>. However, I'm not sure about whether we need a custom close reason for this - I'd want to see this happen consistently before we burn a close reason on it. </p> <p>Otherwise, let's just close these as unclear. I have a simple test I run every question and answer through: If I can't read your question and understand it in the first two tries, it's unclear. One catch: all your links are dead. I refuse to click on them.</p> <p>If your answer isn't high quality without the information behind a link, it isn't high quality. If your question doesn't have enough information without the information behind a link, it doesn't have enough information.</p> <p>I'd propose that we close these as "unclear what you're asking", and revisit this if it becomes an epidemic. </p>

286

2015-10-14T17:24:26.223

Questions about cloud virtual machines allowed?

|discussion|questions|

<p>Will questions asking about using certain virtual machines for a particular use case be allowed? </p> <p>Like this:</p> <p>"I'm implementing a cache with X key and Y value, where Y will never exceed 1kb, and there will never be more than 1000000 items in the cache. Would a memory-intensive vm be okay, or can I stick with the general purpose one?"</p> <p>"For 3D rendering, would be better in the long run to add in a GPU to my computer, or spinning up a GPU instance?"</p> <p>I know we only specify 'Hardware', but these VMs map out to some bare metal server somewhere in some data center.</p>

<p>I think questions specifically about VMs are off topic. VMs are nothing more than software, and software is obviously off topic here. The exception, if you can even call it that, is asking about <em>what hardware a VM will use or run off of</em>.</p> <p>You need a computer of some kind to run a VM, so asking about that computer's components is definitely on topic.</p> <p><strong>On topic:</strong></p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>Cost-efficient RAM for running 20 VMs?</li> <li>Powerful hyperthreaded CPU for running massive multitasking VM</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>Both questions are asking about the hardware behind the VM(s).</p> <p><strong>Off topic:</strong></p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>What kind of VM will run best on the current top-of-the-line hardware?</li> <li>Will my VM be safe running off of only 2GB of memory?</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>The focus of these questions is the VM that will be used, not the hardware.</p> <p>So, your first example question wouldn't fit the bill. It's not focusing on hardware at all. Your second example question would easily fit because a video card recommendation can clearly result from it.</p>

293

2015-10-18T02:42:14.857

Should we have a close reason for technical support questions?

|discussion|status-completed|close-reasons|

<p>We've gotten several questions that have been technical support type questions:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/695/cant-be-established-connection-with-internet-whats-up">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/695/cant-be-established-connection-with-internet-whats-up</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/689/question-on-how-many-rewrites-on-a-specific-ssd">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/689/question-on-how-many-rewrites-on-a-specific-ssd</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/585/is-there-mercury-in-a-mouse">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/585/is-there-mercury-in-a-mouse</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/594/asus-x501u-cant-play-video-above-1080p">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/594/asus-x501u-cant-play-video-above-1080p</a></li> </ul> <p>Current wording on these also suggest they are technical support vs. hardware recommendation/information leading to recommendation:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/688/can-i-exchange-a-native-asus-x551m-hard-drive-and-a-toshiba-canvio-connect-ii-ex">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/688/can-i-exchange-a-native-asus-x551m-hard-drive-and-a-toshiba-canvio-connect-ii-ex</a> <blockquote> <p>Would the two fit in each others' respective slots? They look like they have different formats.</p> </blockquote> </li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/620/hdmi-switches-how-are-they-supposed-to-work">HDMI switches - how are they supposed to work?</a> <blockquote> <p>Is this behaviour normal, or have I just bought junk?</p> </blockquote> </li> </ul> <p>I am proposing, when we can, that we have a close reason specific for this type of question.</p>

<p>I suggest the following wording for such a close reason</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Technical support request</strong></p> <p>Questions asking about <strong>troubleshooting hardware or technical support for hardware</strong> are off-topic for Hardware Recommendations. We are here to provide pre-purchase hardware recommendations and to recommend hardware for a specific task.</p> </blockquote>

297

2015-10-21T03:46:29.307

Re-write dumbphone question, or ask new question?

|discussion|questions|

<p>(Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I <em>believe</em> it is? Please feel free to tell me otherwise, and I can move/remove this question if necessary. Also, please feel free to add/remove tags - I haven't used Meta before, and I'm not sure what tags would go well here.)</p> <p>Relating to my question <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/716/new-affordable-rugged-dumbphone-to-last-as-long-as-possible">here</a>.</p> <p>I'm tempted to re-write this question so that there's a much less strict set of preferences/requirements, essentially down to something like:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Needs</strong></p> <p>Dumbphone, strong/durable, good battery life, works on Australian 3g (or higher), should potentially last up to 10 years or more, under $50 AUD (though under $100 AUD acceptable).</p> <p><strong>Bonus points for</strong></p> <p>Handling being forgotten outside somewhere overnight, waterproof/water-resistant, the more recent the model was released the better.</p> </blockquote> <p>With better formatting of course. Just trying to get my point across succinctly.</p> <p>Are these two questions distinct enough to warrant being asked separately? Or should I just edit the question itself (and maybe add something like &quot;(Updated)&quot; to the title)?</p> <p>If I should just edit the question itself, would the case be different if the question had received an answer/answers?</p> <p>I'm leaning towards thinking I should just edit the question, but I get the nagging feeling that I'm missing something. E.g. if people would see the question pop up to the top of the list again, but not bother with it because they've already visited the question, seen the current requirements, and decided it's too hard to investigate? Is this even an issue? Maybe something else?...</p> <p>In any case, I'll wait another day or two to see if any answers come in first.</p>

<p>There are a few scenarios in which it's perfectly fine to edit your question.</p> <ul> <li>If there are no answers.<br> With no answers, you won't invalidate any answers by editing your question (which is generally why substantial edits are discouraged).</li> <li>If you're not changing the basic premise.<br> If you don't change the basic thing you're asking about/for, then it's fine - again, you don't invalidate any answers.</li> </ul> <p>It seems you're clear on both of these cases, so edit away!</p>

302

2015-10-24T18:25:16.837

Should we have a 'blatantly off-topic' custom close reason?

|discussion|close-reasons|

<p>We got a <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/189/should-we-have-a-custom-too-broad-off-topic-reason#comment516_189">custom close reason for unclear questions</a> - yay!</p> <p>However, when we got this it deactivated the 'standard' blatantly off-topic reason, thereby making us have to use custom comments for questions like <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/754/1">this one</a>. </p> <p>Should we have a 'this just doesn't belong here' reason? The standard, boring one should work:</p> <blockquote> <p>This question does not appear to be about hardware recommendations, within the scope defined in the help center.</p> </blockquote>

<p>^{<em>Sorry, I jumped the gun and have to retract my answer at the bottom of this post.</em>}</p> <p>When a question is off topic (but not covered by a custom reason), the proper course of action is to select 'other' which will ask you explain <em>why</em> the question should be closed&hellip; which will allow others to select that reason and post it as a comment.</p> <p>Closing as 'other' actually displays that same text as the original "standard blatantly off-topic" reason, but now the closure is accompanied by an explanation <strong><em>why</em></strong> that post was closed specifically. </p> <p>The thinking in removing the default use case is that advanced communities should be able to explain <em>why</em> a post is being close rather than falling back on a reason that says little more than <em>"this just doesn't fit&hellip;"</em> If you feel a post should be closed, you should be able to explain <em>why</em> it should be closed. Using the 'other' close reason simply enforces this.</p> <hr> <p><strike>I added another custom close reason with the default text that came with the site:</p> <blockquote> <p>This question does not appear to be about hardware recommendations within the scope defined in the help center.</p> </blockquote> <p>Try not to overuse this. The default close reason that came with your site says little more than <em>"this just doesn't fit"</em> &mdash; but the thinking is that if you're already adding custom close reasons, you should be able to explain <em>why</em> something doesn't fit by selecting 'other' and leaving a clear comment. If that default close reason is used too often out of default-laziness, I will probably be asked to remove it.</strike></p>

315

2015-10-26T18:05:23.380

Should we delete things that don't match our criteria?

|discussion|question-quality|answer-quality|

<p>It was <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/should-we-have-sr-style-quality-guidelines-for-questions-and-answers">proposed</a>, then it was implemented for <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-be-high-quality">questions</a> and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59/what-is-required-for-an-answer-to-be-high-quality">answers</a>. We have quality guidelines for questions and answers; now, the question is how we enforce them.</p> <p>Now that this site has some diamonds, we want to know what we should do with posts that aren't up to scratch, and we need your opinions on it.</p> <p><strong>For questions</strong> - do we close them? Delete them? Lock them (hint: the answer's no)?</p> <p><strong>For answers</strong> - Mr SR Mod @Undo tells me that he deletes posts that aren't up to scratch "with extreme prejudice" - should we do the same?</p>

<p>In my ideal world, we would <em>warn</em> people that post these through comments, then exactly <em>x</em> hours later delete their answer if they hadn't heeded the warning.</p> <p>In real life, though, this didn't work. In the early days of SR, I had a big Trello sheet of answers that needed deleted at what times... it was terrible. Just deleting them on sight removes a whole bunch of administrative overhead. </p> <p>So, in real life, I would vote that we:</p> <ul> <li><p>Close questions, and let the system automatically delete them if it matches the deletion criteria. Otherwise, don't manually delete them.</p></li> <li><p>Delete bad answers on sight, with a comment explaining what we expect and how they can edit/flag or post a new answer.</p></li> </ul>

325

2015-10-26T19:56:10.910

Help! What's on-topic here?

|discussion|help-center|scope|

<p>When people arrive at our site, they'll be directed to /help/on-topic for guidance about what's on-topic here. Said page currently contains basically nothing useful; I can tell you that without even looking at it.</p> <p>However, we have moderators now, and we can edit that page. So - what should it say?</p> <p>Propose some possible help center text in an answer. After a while, we'll amalgamate what we can and come up with some content to put in the help center that'll actually <em>help</em> when people come to visit.</p>

<p>How about this, adapted from our <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/206/1">question quality guidelines</a>?:</p> <p>On-topic:</p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>a recommendation for hardware to perform a specific task, or</li> <li>information that will lead to a purchase decision</li> </ul> <p><strong>Note</strong> that your question must meet quality requirements. Please <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/206/1">read them here</a> before posting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Off-topic:</p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>Technical support of any kind</li> <li>Step-by-step instructions for &quot;do-it-yourself&quot; installation</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>This would also translate nicely to the ask/don't-ask bullet lists on <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/tour">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/tour</a>.</p>

336

2015-10-28T13:48:24.807

What should I do if a question is answered via email?

|support|answers|

<p>I recently asked <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/894/system-upgrade-for-a-small-home-server">System upgrade for a small home-server?</a> , and someone answered the question via email:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dESXo.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dESXo.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> <p>Obviously the question should be answered as an answer on the question itself, <strong><em>not</em></strong> via email, as:</p> <ul> <li>This means that if someone else has the same question, there is no answer;</li> <li>Defeats the reputation system (e.g, no rep for answering or accepting);</li> <li>Means the question itself may go unanswered</li> </ul> <p>I responded to the email by requesting the question be answered an an answer on the question itself:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/3r4j4.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/3r4j4.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> <p>Did I take the correct action? What about if they do not answer the question using the 'answer' facility? Should I self-answer the question, using the details they supplied in their email?</p>

<p>If they don't answer the question in a reasonable period of time^*, I'd post what they sent you as a community wiki answer, if you feel it answers your question. You should also expand on the answer at little, as there aren't a lot of details <em>why</em> it answers your question. There may be snippets of information behind those links that helped convince you that this is a good answer.</p> <hr> <p>^* In this case, you get to decide what "reasonable" means</p>

343

2015-10-29T18:19:24.263

Do we still want general advice questions?

|discussion|faq|scope|questions|

<p>Prompted by <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/940/choosing-ips-screen-for-laptop">this question</a>.</p> <p>A long time ago, <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4/are-what-should-i-consider-when-buying-questions-allowed">we decided</a> that "what should I consider"/general advice-type questions are allowed. We had <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/7/what-should-i-look-for-besides-pixel-density-count-when-choosing-a-smartphone-wi">at least one</a> of these questions, which seemed to be pretty well-received.</p> <p>Simple question: do we still want these, or in light of more recent decisions, events, and close reasons, do we put them to bed?</p>

<p>Personally, I say <strong>no</strong>. I'll reiterate several reasons for that that I've made over the past few days.</p> <ul> <li><p><strong>They go out of date too quickly.</strong><br> Robert Cartaino has <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/446/8">explained why</a> that's not usually a valid reason to close a question; it's a misconception that questions have to last a long time. And, for the most part, I agree. <em>However</em>, the longevity of these questions I think <em>is</em> a concern for us.</p> <p>Posts that provide general advice are very likely to become canonical sources for information about how to choose X component for your new computer system. They're liable to be some of our most viewed questions, and to be relied on to provide solid advice about choosing a product.</p> <p><strong>I don't think our community is big enough to manage that.</strong> Looking at the numbers of <em>really</em> active people we have on this site, it's relatively small. That's not a <em>bad</em> thing - the site is very young, and I wouldn't expect it to be much bigger. However, it does mean that providing the time and resources to keep these posts updated is a much bigger ask of the community. It may not happen - and I really wouldn't like to have to add a disclaimer to every general-advice answer that warns people the content may be out of date.</p></li> <li><p><strong>They don't necessarily lead to a product decision.</strong><br> I don't think this point is as strong as the last, but it's worth mentioning. Our scope is to provide answers that either directly recommend hardware, or that directly lead to a purchase decision. General advice questions don't necessarily fit that scope.</p> <p>Providing general advice is great, and it may well help people to choose their hardware. However, what it <em>doesn't</em> do is provide the personalised service that a recommendation question gets - there's no consideration of each person's situation and requirements, and there's no chance to get specific questions answered by looking at general advice.</p></li> <li><p><strong>Reviewing case-by-case is messy.</strong><br> It's <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/447/8">been suggested</a> that we could review these questions on a case-by-case basis. I don't think that'll work very well, because it turns out subjectivity. Who's to say when a certain question is worth closing? Is it off-topic? Why? Too broad? Why?</p> <p>OK, we deal with this to some extent with normal closures. However, I feel that making the policy case-by-case review would mean we close questions with tenuous policy at best to back us up. As a moderator, I would <em>far</em> prefer to close a question if I have solid policy backing me up that I can link to and explain if I'm challenged on the decision or the case goes to meta.</p> <p>If we can't review case-by-case, that leaves two options - allow them all, or ban them all. I don't think we should allow them all - see above - so we're left with not allowing them at all.</p></li> </ul>

346

2015-11-02T14:39:16.540

Could we have a 'no research effort' close/flag reason?

|discussion|feature-request|status-declined|close-reasons|

<p>Some <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/987/local-network-web-server">questions are decent but lack research effort</a>:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VZE0n.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/VZE0n.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> <p>The standard close reason for this type of question is that they are too broad:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Requirements are too broad</strong> — This is a community-run website to help users complete an exhaustive solution search given very specific requirements. Posts should detail why a simple product search did not work for you. Unfortunately the "requirements" listed are not sufficient to narrow down the possible solutions in any definitive way.</p> </blockquote> <p>Consequently I think that this could be confusing to some users, <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/987/local-network-web-server#comment2085_987">even with a comment</a> addressing the reason behind the question being put on hold or closed. The current reason for "no research effort" may also prompt the user to adding more specific requirements to their question, but still does not include evidence of any research undertaken (<em>if any</em>).</p> <p>Instead, I personally think it'd be a good idea to <strong>add</strong> a new close/flag reason:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>No research effort</strong> — Some questions are easily answerable via a search-engine, and must include some evidence of research. Unfortunately there is no evidence of any research undertaken, or it is not sufficient to narrow down possible solutions in any definitive way.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know a similar close/flag reason to this has <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/260828/do-we-need-a-close-reason-for-zero-effort-questions">been proposed</a> on other Stack Exchange sites, but however I think that this is something that Hardware Recommendations <strong>solely needs</strong>.</p>

<p>Stack Exchange already has a tool for questions that lack research effort.</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7CZw0.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/7CZw0.png" alt="downvote tooltip screenshot"></a></p> <p>If you think a question lacks research effort, downvote it.</p> <p>Questions that lack research effort often warrant closure, but not because they lack research effort. Research effort is a property of how the question is written, not of what it asks. Closure is about answerability, it's about what answers the question calls for, not about how it's written. There is some correlation, for example questions that lack research effort are often unclear or too vague. So if the question is unclear, close it as unclear, etc. But “lacks research effort” in itself is not related to closure.</p>

356

2015-11-04T01:57:30.200

Delete is a last resort, not a first response

|discussion|deleted-answers|

<p>I'm new to this particular stackexchange, and admittedly my first answer was not quite in keeping with the general expectations. That's not my point.</p> <p>The specific answer is here: <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1036/low-power-draw-hd-resolution-video-card/1042#1042">Low-power-draw HD resolution video card</a></p> <p>I'm happy to admit it does not specifically provide a low power graphics card as requested by the enquirer. However it does provide an answer that would provide the same end result, albeit a completely different way, and probably a way that the OP had not considered at all.</p> <p>Over at <a href="https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/">https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/</a> we make an effort to salvage the good parts of a comment/answer by using comments, or by direct editing. Delete is for those answers that are beyond saving.</p> <p>I'd like to politely suggest that <strong>delete should be a last response, not the first.</strong></p> <p>Edit: Screenshot as requested. <a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/uCz56.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/uCz56.png" alt="screenshot as requested"></a></p>

<p>To address your specific request here right off:</p> <p>In <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/315/should-we-delete-things-that-dont-match-our-criteria">Should we delete things that don&#39;t match our criteria?</a>, we talked over what the deletion policies should be. Here, they are similar to Software Recommendations, where deletion is closer to a first response.</p> <p>That's because, being a recommendations site, we're much more liable to get low-quality and spam posts then other places on the network.</p> <p>Now, your answer was neither of these, but as it stood it didn't really answer the question - you recommended a piece of software, rather than the GPU asked for. Since we're proactive on deletions, I deleted the post. Admittedly I skimped a little on the comment, which usually also links to the answer quality guidelines and encourages you to post another answer - my fault, sorry.</p> <p>It occurs to me that perhaps the difference in deletion policy isn't obvious enough, given that it has resulted in an unhappy poster coming to Meta to complain. Feedback would be welcome here - should we link them in a comment when we delete things? Publicise them some other way?</p> <hr> <p>What your answer <em>did</em> do was address the problem behind the question, I won't dispute that. And, to be honest, I like seeing answers that do that - the deletion was a policy thing rather than a feeling about the answer. However, in <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/358/8">this meta post</a>, we're now debating if these answers should be left there - please do weigh in.</p>

358

2015-11-04T04:03:34.547

Should we allow software alternatives to hardware requests to be "valid" answers?

|discussion|status-completed|answer-quality|

<p>Do we allow alternatives to the requested hardware to remain as valid answers? I believe we allow a wide variety of hardware to be an "answer". Not all of the hardware can fulfill all requirements, thus we keep the alternatives around to allow the OP to determine which features they want/don't want.</p> <p>What if the alternative is software, though? A <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/356/57">recent meta post</a> brought this issue up when an <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1036/low-power-draw-hd-resolution-video-card/1042#1042">answer</a> was deleted. There is at least one other <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/874/57">answer</a> on the site that proposes a similar alternative - software instead of hardware.</p> <hr> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dIk33.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/dIk33.png" alt="Team Center"></a></p> <hr> <p>Should we allow software alternatives to a hardware request to remain on the site?</p> <p>In both cases, the software proposed does solve an underlying problem posed in the question. </p>

<p>Sometimes the answer to a hardware question <em>is</em> software. For example, one answer to "I want a low-budget computer-connected oscilloscope for measuring signals in the kilohertz range" could be "this software oscilloscope permits using your computer's microphone jack as an input".</p> <p>A pure-software answer should be subjected to the same criteria as hardware answers: does it meet the asker's requirements.</p>

363

2015-11-07T03:45:33.563

Differences from SuperUser

|discussion|

<p>Unfortunately a lot of questions here are about Hardware <strong>support</strong> as well as shopping. These questions belong on SuperUser. How do we prevent users from asking questions? How can we as a whole improve on this situation?</p>

<p>I'm an SU mod. And well, I suggest that the best way to deal with this is the <em>same way</em> we would deal with questions that belong on SR or HW - close em. Keep closing em. </p> <p>If its a great and glorious question that causes the heavens to open up and have a single sunbeam shine down on how awesome it is, vote or flag to migrate. If its a horrible question, don't bother, we'll kick it back.</p> <p>As a <em>SR</em> mod, and having been through the process of helping bootstrap a new site, closures are an <em>essential</em> part of setting the scope of the site. Sometimes you got to set an example. </p>

366

2015-11-07T12:22:03.943

How can I make my question clearer?

|discussion|question-quality|

<p>A few days ago I <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1054/4g-router-for-home-use">asked this question</a>.</p> <p>It hasn't received much attention other than a few upvotes (<em>with a single downvote the same time as the downvoted answer was upvoted</em>), and the OP of the answer doesn't seem to grasp that their suggestion does not meet one of the requirements that I set out in the question:</p> <blockquote> <p>Should be suited to home networking (don't want a portable router)</p> </blockquote> <p>I then started suspecting that the question <em>could</em> have quality issues (namely, clarity of the question), and one of the comments by the OP suggests this:</p> <blockquote> <p>But isn't that EXACTLY what this does? " It's made to be used as a wifi router " Unless wifi router means something different to you, i do not see why this one would not solve your issue? I never move my wifi router, it stays in it's place and cover the whole house. this one is just that. it's meant to be used like that. YOu should be a little more clearer on what is wrong with this one, or what is exactly that you're looking for and is lacking in this one. It'l help me help you </p> </blockquote> <p>Are there quality issues with my question, and if so, how can I make the question better?</p> <p>It seems that from the OP of the answer's point of view, that I haven't made it clear that I do not want a portable router (MiFi). I've added another bullet point to try and make this clearer:</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>Not portable</strong>- Portable 'MiFi' routers often have a very low WiFi signal range. This device will be used in a home, in place of a standard WiFi broadband router.</p> </blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, your question is good as it is now. It makes clear what you want - and what you don't want - and specifies it nicely. I don't think there's any action necessary on your part to clear the question up. The fact that it's not getting answers isn't necessarily indicative of problems, either - being a <em>specific recommendations</em> site, we have a higher percentage of unanswered questions.</p> <p>The fact that the answer doesn't answer your question is through no fault of your own, and I'm going to go and review it as soon as I've pressed the button to post this answer.</p>

369

2015-11-11T19:18:54.213

How do we encourage new users to stay on topic?

|discussion|

<p>11 of the last 12 questions are on hold for being off topic. </p> <p>What can we do to encourage users to stay on topic? </p> <p>Is there any indication that the authors of these off topic questions are returning to make edits? Are we scaring new users away by closing questions quickly (in less than a minute in at least <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1180/driver-power-state-failure-every-nvidia-geforce-gtx-update#comment2463_1180">one case</a>)</p>

<p>I have to say we <em>are</em> scaring new users away by closing questions quickly.</p> <p>As Robert briefly discussed in his answer, these new users (at least half of them so far) have never used this site before and usually do not yet understand how everything works and what is required of them. Having your first question immediately closed for whatever reason is never a great experience. Most people take that to mean they have failed and/or aren't accepted among the community.</p> <p>Now that's not to say we should stop closing questions so fast; any question that doesn't fit the guidelines needs to be closed or edited, but that right there is the problem I find myself running into in most cases: <strong>If closing the author's question so quickly will discourage them from participating any further, being as nice as possible and simply asking the author to edit the question with more info would be much more benficial.</strong> If the author doesn't go on to edit the question, <em>then</em> it should be closed. Though following this rule leads to more gray areas we would have to sift through each time. Doing this can also fight off the bad image created by the front page being full of closed questions, another thing Robert mentioned.</p> <p>So I think we can and should take a look at our question-closing habits; it has a big impact on the site as a whole. And as for how to encourage users to stay on topic, Robert's answer is spot on.</p>

379

2015-11-18T15:19:06.723

Comment removal philosophy

|discussion|comments|flagging|

<p>I really hate to ask this, because it's about a single comment flag, but can we get some clarification on what the moderators consider good vs bad comments?</p> <p>I am asking because a flag I had on the following comment was declined:</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm sorry, why do you disapprove of this answer, downvoter?</p> </blockquote> <p>I've had a few other declined comment flags, but when looking through them, they were all removed later. Unfortunately, that means I can't provide examples of what they were before someone either went back through and removed them or other community users flagged them as well.</p> <p>(Edit, later on:)</p> <p>Here's an example of an comment that had an "obsolete" flag on it declined:</p> <blockquote> <p>@Andy feel free to add that to the answer – Firepower0701 Sep 14 at 18:11</p> </blockquote> <p>It was flagged as obsolete because an edit negated the point it made.</p> <hr> <p>The comment above is not constructive. Users can vote however they wish for whatever reason they wish. They also do not need to provide any other feedback. Granted, it'd be <em>nice</em> if they did, but asking for such feedback doesn't accomplish anything except add noise to a post.</p> <p>My question, before I continue flagging and seeing either declined flags or declined and eventually removed, what do the moderators want <em>removed</em> from the site that we should be flagging?</p>

<p>I was the one who declined the flag on that comment.</p> <p>At the time, the comment appeared to ask a perfectly legitimate question, which it still does, but I see how it is definitely noise. I guess this was a single case where I confused general noise with something that could be helpful.</p> <p>I'll remove the comment soon. As for what we want removed, the best blanket description is <em>anything that is flaggable</em> (excluding the custom reason unless you honestly have a decent one to give). This means general noise, spam, too chatty, rude/offensive, not constructive, or obsolete comments.</p> <p>Comments should essentially be only used as a way to ask for more info, discuss current info, or provide notes that can help solve the author's problem.</p>

386

2015-11-28T00:03:56.200

Recommendations for digital camera with very specific features on topic?

|discussion|

<p>I am looking for a digital camera with very specific features. It would be hooked up to a computer on a regular basis to view/download images/videos.</p> <p>Would this be on topic here?</p> <p>I've read <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">What is Hardware?</a> and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/50/what-type-of-hardware-is-allowed">What type of hardware is allowed?</a>, but I'm not sure what decisions have been made.</p>

<p>I'd say yes.</p> <p>A digital camera performs more than one meaningful task on its own, and is operated by a user. I therefore see it as a PCP as defined in the "What is Hardware?" post.</p> <p>Even better, given you've got "very specific requirements" - as always, the more specific you can be, the better.</p>

392

2015-12-04T23:28:22.243

Are questions about acceptable hardware for given OS on topic

|discussion|scope|

<p>I am looking at replacing my home server and trying to understand how a specific CPU will perform in my environment with a specific OS. Are such questions on-topic?</p> <p>For more clarity, my question is roughly (although I would expand some details so as not to keep important info hidden behind links obviously):</p> <blockquote> <p>I am looking at a inexpensive and low power home server to run Windows Server 2012 Essentials R2. I see there are some <a href="http://ark.intel.com/products/family/71263/Intel-Atom-Processor-for-Server" rel="nofollow">server versions of the Atom processor</a> but I am concerned because the clock speeds are below <a href="https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn383626.aspx" rel="nofollow">Microsoft's recommended requirements</a> although they do exceed the minimum requirements. </p> <p>So for a server box that will do nothing else but acting in the Server 2012 R2 Essentials role, is an Atom processor sufficient power, or should I opt for a more powerful processor in the Xeon family? I am interested in an Atom because the low power consumption is extremely appealing since I already have enough higher-power hardware running 24/7, but it is not a hard requirement.</p> </blockquote>

<p>Im not a big moderator or some guy like that, but in my opinion, yes. </p> <p>I'll say it like this: </p> <p>You're looking for a banana peeler. However, you need to peel magical bananas that are only available to use with one certain type of peeler. You therefore ask for a peeler that will work well with this magical peeler.</p> <p>The other reason is that we close off-topic questions for being to <strong>BROAD</strong>. This question doesn't seem broad. He gives what he needs to do with the piece of hardware, the options he is looking at, and what support he needs. The fact that he is looking for a hardware-piece optimized for server 2012 will cross out all the Linux options, just making it easier for an answer that will be useful. </p> <p>More on the topic here:</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/100/are-questions-related-to-third-party-hosting-requirements-on-topic?rq=1">Are questions related to third party hosting requirements on topic?</a> </p>

395

2015-12-10T16:38:24.083

Question deletion policy?

|discussion|deleted-questions|

<p>How do we want to handle deletion of questions? We have a <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/search?page=2&amp;tab=relevance&amp;q=closed%3A1">decent</a> number of closed questions. Do some of these need to be removed completely?</p> <p>Now that I've made it to 2K and several others are getting closer, the community can start to handle some of these deletions. So, what do we want to delete?</p>

<p>See: <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/319/8">Undo's answer</a> to <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/315/8">a previous meta question on this topic</a>.</p> <p>In that answer, Undo sets out what he thinks we should do with low-quality or off-topic questions - along similar principles to Gilles, who has the accepted answer. In essence, it comes down to "close questions, delete answers" if they don't match our requirements.</p> <p>At the moment, we haven't had any problems with that policy, so I'd be heavily inclined to keep doing that. Closing questions but not deleting them allows for editing and reopening that can't happen when deleted (except by mod intervention - there just aren't enough voters with the rep).</p> <p>I'd also be wary of pre-empting the roomba's deletions - the time limits set on those are (presumably) set at the lengths they are for a reason, so I'd be careful of deleting those early unless they deserve it for some other reason.</p>

414

2016-01-31T05:46:31.810

Is there a decent, real, question we can use in the Tour?

|discussion|tour|

<p>On the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/tour">tour</a> page, our example question is currently about unicorns and daisies. Do we have any questions that are eligible for replacing this placeholder? If so, could we use that instead?</p> <p>As an aside, the example answer is wrong. The correct answer is to use lion statues near the daisies. Anyone that knows anything about unicorns should know that <a href="http://www.allaboutunicorns.com/lion-and-unicorn.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">lions and unicorns are enemies</a>.</p>

<p>This is the same issue that <a href="https://softwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/888">Software Recommendations faced</a>: the site's expectations of questions/answers are pretty much incompatible with those of the Tour. In two years of existence, they got <a href="http://data.stackexchange.com/softwarerecs/query/92078/possible-about-questions" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>two</em> questions</a> that qualify for the tour. For Hardware Recommendations, this query comes up empty. </p> <p>Another query, <a href="http://data.stackexchange.com/hardwarerecs/query/342500/possible-tour-questions-and-near-misses" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Possible tour questions and near misses</a>, identifies one "near miss": that question will be eligible if it gets the score of 5, one more <em>short</em> answer (under 400 characters), and at least one comment on one of the two short answers.</p>

421

2016-02-04T12:45:53.297

Should we edit the sidebar text on the ask page?

|discussion|closed-questions|asking-questions|

<p>As you <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/419/what-can-we-do-about-technical-support-questions">may have seen</a>, we have an issue with technical support questions.</p> <p>One of the various solutions that has been discussed (proposed in chat and in a meta answer by Andy) is to edit the text in the sidebar of the /questions/ask page. Currently, it doesn't say anything very useful:</p> <blockquote> <h3>How to Ask</h3> <p>Is your question about hardware recommendations?</p> <p>We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed.</p> <p>Provide details. Share your research.</p> <p>If your question is about this website, <strong><a href="http://meta.hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com">ask it on meta</a></strong> instead.</p> </blockquote> <p>We could edit this to say something more useful - potentially linking to the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">What is Hardware?</a>, <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-be-high-quality">What is required for a question to be &#39;high quality&#39;?</a>, and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic">help/on-topic</a> pages. We could also explicitly state that we don't do tech support. Perhaps it could look like this:</p> <blockquote> <h3>How to Ask</h3> <p>Are you looking for a recommendation of a specific piece of hardware?</p> <p>We can't help with support for <em>existing</em> hardware.</p> <p>For details of what hardware we can find for you, see <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">What is Hardware?</a>. Please keep these things in mind when asking: <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-be-high-quality">What is required for a question to be &#39;high quality&#39;?</a>.</p> <p>If your question is about this website, <strong><a href="http://meta.hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com">ask it on meta</a></strong> instead.</p> </blockquote> <p>Good idea? Post your thoughts, objections, and alternative wordings below.</p>

<p>Ok, I took Andy &amp; Art's proposal and hammered on it until it fit into the sidebar with only a minimal amount of ugly wrapping:</p> <blockquote> <p>Questions here get better answers when you&hellip;</p> <ul> <li>&hellip;show us what you've done and why it hasn't worked for you</li> <li>&hellip;list <strong>all</strong> your requirements for a <strong>single</strong>, <strong>specific</strong> piece of hardware</li> <li>&hellip;avoid asking for technical support</li> </ul> <p>Remember, we don't do compatibility queries, build reviews or HOWTOs. For the full details on what sort of questions are appropriate, see <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/205/what-is-required-for-a-question-to-be-high-quality">our guidelines</a> and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">the types of hardware we can recommend</a>.</p> <p>Questions about the site itself should be asked on <a href="http://meta.hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com">meta</a>.</p> <a href="/help">visit the help center &raquo;</a><br><a href="/help/how-to-ask">asking help &raquo;</a></p></blockquote> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/ask"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/plkyq.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

436

2016-02-27T21:59:01.287

What should define a question as too broad, the number of requirments or the number of possible solutions?

|discussion|

<p>A question can still have more than 10 requirements and too many or easy to find answers.</p> <p>In the same time, a question with only 2 requirements might don’t have any existing device at all or at least very unlikely to exist <em>(for example <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65287/hardware-recommendations/72049#72049">this one</a>)</em>.</p> <p>So for me it’s obvious it’s the number of possible answers and how they are easy to find that should define wheather a question is too broad or not.<br> However it makes <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/review">https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/review</a> far more difficult <strong>:‑)</strong>. Because it require to try to answer the question first and possibly write comments and wait for an answer instead of overlook it and click on the close button <em>(or not doing so for questions which are really too broad)</em>. <strong>:‑)</strong></p> <p>If there’s a correlation between the number of requirements and the number of products available matching the specification, should we require a minimum number of requirements <em>(please note it tends de‑facto applied like robots do)</em> ?</p>

<p>I don't think it can be that clear cut. It has to be a combination of both. The number of requirements has a correlation to the number of products available matching the specification - it's not a causal relationship, but more general.</p> <ul> <li>Few requirements are often the signal of a broad question. These need closer review - if the requirements narrow it down to just a few products, that's fine.</li> <li>Lots of requirements don't generally need as much of a close eye, since they have a much stronger correlation with few matching products.</li> </ul> <p>I <em>don't</em> think we should be requiring a minimum number of requirements, though, precisely because of this - there are valid questions with only one or two requirements, that still have very few products available matching the definition. Fortunately, we're humans, not robots - we can apply common sense rather than just metrics when reviewing posts.</p>

438

2016-02-28T12:10:10.297

Under what close vote questions with a scope too narrrow to help other readers?

|discussion|close-reasons|vote-to-close|

<p>Unlike many sites, we don’t have a close reason for such questions. While some will arg this isn’t ok by the design of the stack exchange network, many sites like security.se accept such questions in certain circumstances <em>(in the case of security typicall a particular ᴄᴠᴇ)</em>.</p> <p>so for such questions are until we decided on meta <em>(here)</em> that they aren’t.</p>

<p>Narrow questions should not be closed just because they are narrow; on the contrary, narrow questions are <em>exactly</em> what all our guidance on asking questions is focused on achieving.</p> <p>Narrow questions are generally characterised by a well-defined and well-specified product request, which is what we want to see. Instead, these questions should be upvoted.</p>

450

2016-03-08T16:09:32.553

Moderator Review - How are we doing?

|discussion|moderators|

<p>Since the start of my tenure here, I've been pretty proactive with closures and deletions, and most of my actions have generally been quite visible.</p> <p>Now, while nobody's raised any serious complaints about what I do, I haven't had any other feedback either - and now I'd like to get some. So it's time to review this moderator.</p> <p>How am I doing? Am I...</p> <ul> <li>enforcing policy correctly?</li> <li>closing the right things?</li> <li>deleting the right things?</li> <li>being helpful?</li> </ul> <p>etc, etc. You get the picture. Any feedback, good or bad, on my actions is welcome.</p>

<p>I'll provide some feedback for each of you:</p> <ul> <li>ArtOfCode</li> </ul> <p>I see your name on many closed questions. I agree with almost all of them, and those that I don't I believe I've provided feedback either in the question or on Meta. In all of those cases, you've provided good feedback. </p> <p>You've also been active on Meta. This is important as it helps the community see problems that may not otherwise be visible. You've been involved in scope discussions, user education discussions and policy discussions. You've provided your input and even in the few instances where your input wasn't the most popular, you have followed the community's input.</p> <ul> <li>Undo</li> </ul> <p>I see your name attached to closed questions as well. I have agreed with almost all of them. If I didn't, I've provided feedback. </p> <p>I haven't seen you on Meta in a while though. Perhaps pop in and throw up an opinion once and a while.</p> <ul> <li>Adam</li> </ul> <p>In all honesty, other than the recent NISC meta post, I can't recall the last time I saw some thing done by Adam. My assumption is that you aren't slacking off, because looking at your <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/users/155/adam?tab=activity">recent actions</a> I see you are doing reviews and tag wikis. I have no problems at all with these behind the scenes actions. Unfortunately, I can't provide much more feedback than that. </p> <hr> <p>General feedback for all three</p> <p>Keep talking to us. I've interacted with each of you on meta (some more recently than others). We're still a small site and community so you three are still the most visible users (versus mods on much larger sites). </p> <p>I am happy with all of you as moderators. </p>

453

2016-03-17T06:07:47.450

Why was this edit rejected?

|discussion|

<p>I fixed the typo in the title, and corrected the units. However, the edit was <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/1854">rejected</a>. </p> <p>The [standard] reason given doesn't really seem to apply:</p> <blockquote> <p>This edit does not make the post even a little bit easier to read, easier to find, more accurate or more accessible. Changes are either completely superfluous or actively harm readability.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm not particularly bothered about this specific rejection, nor am I trying to pick a fight. I am merely, respectfully, asking whether, or not, to attempt fixing typos, grammatical errors and incorrect units in future, in particular on the beta Review queues - only 650 points to go!</p>

<p>I recently drafted up a guide for a 3rd party about when to edit posts. It included this brief passage:</p> <blockquote> <ul> <li><strong>Make titles clear</strong><br> Sometimes folks are hesitant to edits something others have written, but titles carry a bit more importance than making someone's copy clear. Questions are the entry point for search and it helps draw people into content that may interest them. When you see a title like "Can someone help me with this problem?", don't assume users will open every questions they see. <strong>If you can improve a title to make it even a <em>little</em> bit more clear about what post contains, you should edit it. Always.</strong> (and encourage users to the do same)</li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>I know the title error was just a typo, but consider also that titles define the front entryway to your site&hellip; and you want to keep that pristine. Being that you also went in and corrected various typos throughout the post, I (personally) would have approved that edit many times over.</p> <p>We have to get over this aversion to touching people's stuff in a wiki-collaborated system&hellip; especially if it gives the original author (and the site) a bit more credibility.</p> <p>My opinion.</p>

464

2016-04-06T19:21:11.240

Are build requests on-topic?

|discussion|scope|question-quality|

<p>Are questions like </p> <blockquote> <p>"I want to build a gaming computer that does a b c and also does x y z for less than $___"?</p> </blockquote> <p>on topic here? Or do they have to be recommendations about an already existing list of hardware that the OP provides such as...</p> <blockquote> <p>"I'm building a gaming computer to do a b c and x y z for less than $____. I'm thinking about using a ... GPU and a ... CPU.</p> </blockquote>

<p>I propose that for consistency's sake, custom PCs <em>taken as a single piece of hardware</em> really need to be part of the site's scope. There are some negative consequences I can think of which, in my view, heavily outweigh the benefits of excluding questions and answers which potentially deal with custom PCs, and I also think most of the problems this site's scope has with custom PC questions can be mitigated if we exercise this site's current best practices in moderation wisely.</p> <p>As I understand it, the primary benefits/reasons for excluding these kinds of questions are:</p> <ul> <li>We avoid ambiguity about our site's purpose</li> <li>We avoid a lot of spam "custom rig" questions and answers</li> <li>It is usually difficult to conclusively answer the question because of the very wide solution space (due to the combinatorial nature of the solution)</li> </ul> <p>To be totally clear, I value all of the above and do not want to change anything if change would lead to a worse experience in any of those regards. However, I think there are some serious foundational/conceptual weaknesses with our current way of achieving those goals which @ArtofCode's question tends to lay bare:</p> <ul> <li>Much like the classic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus" rel="nofollow">Ship of Theseus</a> problem of philosophy, it becomes difficult to define hardware as unitary or modular, since much of the difference is a matter of how we are acculturated to perceive "pieces" of technology. </li> <li>Because of that indistinctness inherent to our definition of the cutoff point for our scope, it becomes difficult for askers and answerers to do their jobs well - it is difficult to define whether they are doing it right, and they will err often because of it. It effectively creates ambiguity where we sought to avoid it.</li> <li>We are unwittingly biasing our site toward turnkey solutions, which in many, many cases, are not in fact the most desirable answer due to cost, inflexibility, or that they will be already known to most people who have done a little research in their area - this last really diminishes our value.</li> <li>For people looking for advice on how to build their own computer, especially their very first, it simply replaces one kind of spam ("rig" spam) with another ("component" spam). Worse, it takes less effort to make a legitimate post about a single component than it would take to make a legitimate post (if such posts were legitimated) about a whole computer. </li> <li>Requiring people to ask questions about individual components only instead of whole computers inadvertently places an unneeded and significant knowledge prerequisite on our askers, because many people who would otherwise be perfectly capable of defining their needs in terms of specifying the <em>problem</em> they want to solve with new hardware are instead asked to learn not only about the specific hardware which will solve their problem, but about entire classes of hardware which are only tangentially related to their problem (e.g. a person wishing to "play Witcher 3 at 1008p/60fps maximum settings for the least amount of USD and using Windows 10" - a question which is amenable to specific answers - must know about hard drives, even though the vast majority of things they learn about hard drives are immaterial to the question of whether their PC can solve their problem). Of course askers need to do research prior to coming here, but the difference between "doing some research" and "knowing enough about PC building to make a specific guess about the requirements of each component" is vast and, I think, unfair to askers.</li> </ul> <p>That said, if we just did away with our rules about custom builds and opened the flood gates, I realize this place would rapidly become useless. Rules are needed to regulate "rig" spam into something more useful. I think it is possible to thread the needle on this and have some specific requirements which pertain only to hardware questions and answers which involve the recommendation of a whole computer system (in any form factor - desktops to phones). I am basing these recommendations on my work experience with how the FDA determines similarity of "devices" for the sake of 510K certification; they grapple with a remarkably similar problem:</p> <ol> <li>If an asker would ask us to recommend a computer (turnkey or otherwise), they should present the question in terms of using it to solve one specific problem (play one game title, render one specific video in X amount of time, etc.) </li> <li>If an asker would ask us to recommend a computer (turnkey or otherwise), they should include an example of one or more turnkey solutions which have been empirically or qualitatively determined to solve their specific problem, so that answers can be held to the standard of <em><a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM284443.pdf" rel="nofollow">substantial equivalence</a></em> in determining whether or not they constitute a helpful answer.</li> <li>If an answer would recommend a computer (turnkey or otherwise), they should accompany that answer with an explanation for how its specifications are <em>substantially equivalent</em> or superior. Explanations which rely primarily on brand preference should be disfavored compared to explanations which try to show comparative or empirical evidence of their sufficiency. </li> </ol> <p>I am not sure whether that would actually put too much onus on answerers, and perhaps there are better ways of doing this, but I felt I should call attention to the problem with our current state of affairs and at least <em>try</em> to present a solution.</p>

465

2016-04-06T19:28:45.660

on-topic meta tag?

|discussion|feature-request|tags|

<p>Should we have a tag for requesting if something is [on-topic]?</p> <p>There are multiple meta posts here asking if things are on-topic...</p> <ul> <li><p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/457/2208">Are batteries on-topic?</a></p></li> <li><p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/325/help-whats-on-topic-here">Help! What&#39;s on-topic here?</a></p></li> <li><p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/412/laser-cutters-on-topic">Laser cutters on topic?</a></p></li> </ul> <p>To name a few.</p> <p>Shouldn't there be a tag to categorize them under?</p>

<p>The <a href="/questions/tagged/scope" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;scope&#39;" rel="tag">scope</a> meta tag is used for questions of topicality.</p>

481

2016-04-26T21:17:16.310

I want to recommend 2 products: should I leave one or two answers?

|discussion|answers|

<p>(This question is basic but I couldn't find the answer skimming through meta.)</p> <p>I read a question, and I want to recommend 2 products that seem to match the requirements: should I leave one or two answers?</p> <p>In the software recommendation Stack Exchange website, typically 1 answer contains 1 program only, so that users can vote and comment directly on a program (e.g., if the answer contains 1 good program and 1 crapware, casting a vote would be meaningless).</p>

<p>I'm not sure about this solution (but like I was asked I divided <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/2596/1366">my answer</a> to two separate answers). There is many answers which recommend not one but many products in different price ranges (best in price) or in different technologies (for bigger comparission, so User which asked question can take his own decision or can have bigger knowledge about range of products he can choose). Personally I often add conclusion at the end and product which I would choose but the decision I leave to the User which asked question. </p> <p>Example answers:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/2590/1366">Flat keyboard</a> - many technologies</li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/2387/1366">Cheap mobile server</a> - old and new product</li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/2277/1366">Android phone under $180</a> - two prices (best in price range)</li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/a/241/1366">Motherboard for a new college desktop computer</a> - two technologies</li> </ul> <p>I think all this answers are valuable but with this rule they should be split to 2-3 answers where they can loose their value or they will be similar with many repetitions. I think that if at the end of the answer there will be conclusion and direct recommendation for one of the products answer should be accepted.</p>

494

2016-05-23T17:13:36.327

Do questions that ask us to identify a type of hardware qualify as pre-purchase?

|discussion|scope|

<p>I've just closed <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/2778/noise-isolating-earbuds-vs-isolation-earphone-tips">this question</a> because it asks us what type of hardware would be a better solution to the problem the OP is having.</p> <p>I've been doing the same with similar questions that ask us to identify the <em>type</em> of hardware to get for a while - closing them under the reasoning that general advice is off-topic, and not knowing what type of hardware you need doesn't qualify as narrow enough for a hardware recommendation.</p> <p>Is this right, or do questions that ask us to identify a type of hardware too actually count as pre-purchase questions?</p>

<p>I've wondered about this myself, and I think it might be worthwhile to accept questions of this type, as long as they are specific enough about what the hardware will be used <em>for.</em></p> <p>"Which brand of CPU is better: Intel or AMD?" is certainly too broad, but "I'm building a PC that I will be using to develop a new gaming physics engine that I will be writing in C++. Which brand of CPU will compile my code faster?" might be ok.</p> <p>Note: I don't actually know whether compile speed is a statistic that can be meaningfully compared between cpu manufacturers; I'm just trying to illustrate the degree of specificity that might be found in a "type" question that we would likely accept.</p>

497

2016-05-27T09:18:47.907

Can/should we have a question interstitial for extra guidance?

|discussion|closed-questions|asking-questions|

<p>On new private beta sites, you can't ask a question without first going through an interstitial screen that gives you advice on how to ask during the private beta.</p> <p>I recently <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/279661/262823">did a micro-study</a> into usability issues for first-time users on Stack Exchange, and one of the most common problems they had was a lack of guidance about what is and isn't on-topic. The main aim of that study was to find ways in which we could reduce the number of tech support questions coming in.</p> <p>The <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/421/8">last attempt</a> we made at doing that was to alter the guidance on the ask a question page itself. My study revealed that doing that was almost certainly entirely useless, as new users didn't read that guidance until after they typed in their question, by which point it was too late.</p> <p>So here's a new idea. What if we had one of those interstitials that every first-time user <em>had</em> to go through before getting to ask a question? On that page, we could put guidance about what types of questions we can answer, that tech support is off-topic, etc etc. We could also potentially add links to <em>other</em> places where people can get tech support, so that we're not just saying "no thanks, go away" but rather "no thanks, but you can look here".</p> <p>How about it?</p>

<p>The TL;DR of this answer is: I question how much value it will add. However, I'm not opposed to it - mostly because <em>I</em> wouldn't be hit with it. Selfish? Yes. Potentially quality improving? Also yes.</p> <hr> <p>Let's use the Stack Overflow interstitial as a discussion point (because we, apparently, don't have one for new users which I didn't realize). <em>If</em> it can be customized, we can come up with wording that is helpful for the users that don't skip through though. </p> <hr> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hcjxz.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hcjxz.png" alt="Stack Overflow interstitial"></a> _{<em>(SO interstitial)</em>}</p> <hr> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdxJD.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdxJD.png" alt="Current guidelines"></a></p> <p>_{<em>(Hardware Recommendations current guidelines)</em>}</p> <hr> <p>Above we have the guidelines that Stack Overflow presents to all new users and the guidelines we present to <em>all</em> users when asking a question.</p> <p>I see a few problems when comparing these two. First, that interstitial is <em>long</em>. There are a lot of words and really not a lot of value, in my opinion. There are five guidelines and we already cover the important ones in far fewer words:</p> <ul> <li>Search and Research</li> <li>Be on topic</li> <li>Be specific</li> <li>Make it relevant to others</li> <li>Keep an open mind</li> </ul> <hr> <h2>Search and Research</h2> <p>We already provide this guideline in our box. The interstitial provides a text box to type into, but I suspect it doesn't do a whole lot to stop posts that are ultimately closed. I haven't found a relevant meta post about that but I did <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/323926/how-often-is-the-search-dialog-used-on-the-interstitial-page">create one</a>.</p> <h2>Be on topic</h2> <p>This seems obvious. We also provide links to our guidelines and hardware we are able to recommend in our box already.</p> <h2>Be specific</h2> <p>Not only do we give this guideline already, this is the only bullet point we have that contains bold formatting. </p> <h2>Make it relevant to others</h2> <p>This is good advice. Our good questions have already managed to do this. The ones we end up closing don't seem to fall foul to this particular bullet though. </p> <h2>Keep an open mind</h2> <p>Again, this is decent advice. We don't seem to have a lot of users going around constantly bumping their question because it wasn't answered though. Instead, the questions are just left unanswered and forgotten.</p> <hr> <p>The current interstitial on SO is shown for users with <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7441/can-and-should-more-be-done-to-encourage-users-to-search-first-and-ask-only-if/9710#9710">less than 10 rep</a>. I've taken a look at the closes we've had in the last month.</p> <pre><code>Question | Rep | Reason http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2661/57 | 141 | Off Topic http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2736/57 | 95 | Opinion http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2744/57 | 124 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2743/57 | 124 | Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2745/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2748/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2749/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2767/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2768/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2763/57 | 131 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2772/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2770/57 | 6 | Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2776/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2777/57 | 1 | Off Topic http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2779/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2783/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2784/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2787/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2785/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2788/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2751/57 | 181 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2793/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2645/57 | 1 | Unclear http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2654/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2663/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2649/57 | 1 | Opinion http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2665/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2666/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2668/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2673/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2678/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2679/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2682/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2697/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2695/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2692/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2701/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2700/57 | 1 | Off Topic http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2709/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2723/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2722/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2719/57 | 1 | Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2730/57 | 176 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2729/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Technical Support http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2728/57 | 101 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad http://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/2727/57 | 1 | Off Topic-&gt;Too Broad </code></pre> <p>A vast majority of the closes are from new users (the single rep users and 101 rep users). An interstitial for the brand new users could at least present a more comprehensive explanation of </p> <blockquote> <p>...avoid asking for technical support</p> </blockquote> <p>I am still interested in the results of <a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/323926/how-often-is-the-search-dialog-used-on-the-interstitial-page">my stats request</a> to see how quickly most users are going through this page, though. Do many users read this, or are they just treating it as a Terms of Service page and clicking "yup, I agree" and moving on to fill out a larger text box.</p>

499

2016-06-06T13:13:46.297

Moderator attention needed

|discussion|

<p>I'm not sure if this is on topic here, please suggest better place if not. If I may, I'd like to ask @Adam and @Undo to review this. </p> <p>I've asked 2 questions today, both of them are put on hold by @ArtOfCode and downvoted, which I'm not sure is justified.</p> <p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/3845/geekbench-3-as-performance-prediction-for-games">Here's first</a>, this one indeed can very well be off-topic depending how you look at it. After tossing comments with @ArtOfCode I also find <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/3844/sell-gtx-980-in-favour-of-rx-480">this question</a> being put on hold and downvoted, which to me seems pretty much on topic. </p> <p>As a user I find both cases rather turning off then inspiring to participate. Please help me understand if I'm doing anything wrong or the questions are fine. </p> <p>I know you guys have a tough job moderating. I'd love to see this community grow. Thanks for taking the time.</p>

<h2>Reasoning</h2> <p>I didn't just close your questions because I felt like it; there were reasons for each closure. Here they are.</p> <ul> <li><p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/3844/8"><strong>Sell GTX 980 in favour of RX 480?</strong></a><br> I closed this as <em>primarily opinion based</em>. If you take out the extra details in that post, the base question you're left with is this:</p> <blockquote> <p>Would you sell GTX 980 for RX 480, pros/cons?</p> </blockquote> <p>I can't see any way of reading that question so that it's not opinion-based - opinions seem to be exactly what you're asking for. Opinion-based questions are generally closed on Stack Exchange because they don't fit the Stack Exchange model, which is built for questions and answers rather than discussion.</p> <p>This question is <em>also</em> off-topic, even if it wasn't opinion-based - see my explanation below.</p></li> <li><p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/3845/8"><strong>Geekbench 3 as performance prediction for games</strong></a><br> I used a custom reason to close this one, namely:</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it doesn't appear to be about hardware recommendations.</p> </blockquote> <p>I did debate between that and using the technical support reason; either would have worked here. There's also potential to use <em>unclear what you're asking</em>. Again removing the extra details, the base question we have is this:</p> <blockquote> <p>If a certain CPU has twice geekbench score of some other CPU, would it really perform twice better in games?</p> </blockquote> <p>First off, what's a geekbench? That's a little unclear, if you could add a link to what you're referring to, that would go a long way there.</p> <p>Second off, and most importantly, the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic">scope of this site</a> is to allow:</p> <ul> <li>asking for a recommendation of hardware to perform a specific task</li> <li>pre-purchase questions, such as <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/494">specific instances</a> of "what type of hardware do I need?"</li> </ul> <p>The scope of this site does <em>not</em> allow technical support questions, or those that don't ask for one of the above. The question you asked appears to be looking for technical support or a technical analysis of CPU's, which doesn't ask for a recommendation.</p></li> </ul> <h2>Downvotes</h2> <p>Just to clarify:</p> <blockquote> <p>...put on hold by @ArtOfCode and downvoted, which I'm not sure is justified.</p> </blockquote> <p>Downvotes are (a) anonymous, and (b) personal - anyone can downvote any post for (almost) any reason. There's deliberately no way to tell who downvoted your post.</p> <p>The major exception to that rule is serial voting: votes are intended to be for <em>posts</em>, not for <em>users</em>. Voting on posts simply because they've been posted by a specific person isn't allowed. (Note: not saying you're doing that, just noting it down.)</p>

516

2016-07-18T20:53:44.930

Good Sites for CPU Reference?

|discussion|resources|

<p>One of the more difficult areas to make decent recommendations with any degree of speed is in the CPU department, especially now that we are entering an era where not everything is so x86, clock-speed -centric. The old x86 architecture is not only increasingly diverse within its own ranks, but is also now seeing competition from other CPU architectures: especially ARM, but also FPGA, MIPS, POWER8, etc. in some cases. </p> <p>What resources can we recommend people take a look at when answering questions or formulating their own questions? I tend to have a lot of experience in the x86 space, so I can make a recommendation or two there, but I am missing any real resources when it comes to ARM and other architectures. </p>

<p>These are some of the benchmarks that I use.</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://3dmark.com/search" rel="nofollow">3DMark</a> benchmark (physics with same GPU)</li> <li><a href="http://cbscores.com/" rel="nofollow">Cinebench</a> scores</li> <li><a href="http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/39" rel="nofollow">Anandtech generalized benchmarks</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2015/benchmarks,187.html" rel="nofollow">Tom's Hardware generalized benchmarks</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php" rel="nofollow">Passmark benchmark</a></li> </ul> <p>For comparison I generally look at manufacturer's websites</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://ark.intel.com/" rel="nofollow">ARK intel</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/processors" rel="nofollow">AMD Products</a></li> </ul> <p>Hopes this helps.</p>

542

2016-08-15T11:32:44.437

Is Where To Buy A Custom Laptop On Topic?

|discussion|

<p>I am looking for a quite specific set of specs in a laptop and the usual suspects can't meet my requirements.</p> <p>Is it on topic to ask for sites/manufacturers that do full custom builds?</p>

<p>Asking for <em>where</em> to buy is off-topic. Asking for <em>what</em> to buy is on-topic.</p> <p>Questions that are on-topic for this site ask for a recommendation of a piece of hardware, based on a specific set of requirements. Your first paragraph here sounds a lot like that - <em>quite a specific set of specs in a laptop</em>.</p> <p>Instead of asking where to buy, why not outsource all the work? Detail all your requirements in a question, and ask for recommendations of a laptop meeting those specifications. If none of the recommendations work out for you, then you should still have been given a supplier's name along with the recommendation, which you can use to look around for other products.</p>

545

2016-08-15T21:31:09.107

How to delete a subprofile?

|support|

<p>How do I completely remove myself from Hardware Recommendations? To be clear I want to stay on all the other Stack Exchange sites, except this one?</p> <p>I do not agree with the current moderation and don't want to waste my time and anyone else's at the same time.</p>

<p>Use the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/contact">contact us</a> link in the footer of the site, and select "I need to delete my user profile".</p> <p>Your account will be added to a deletion queue by the Stack Exchange staff, and will be removed after a period of time, if you don't manually cancel the deletion.</p>

556

2016-09-02T09:55:27.277

Make it clear in the tour that Super User may be an alternative place to ask

|discussion|tour|

<p>I asked a question two days ago. I did assume I was scratching the edges of the site’s scope, but I didn’t know at the time it was actually outside scope. I do realise that now and I also understand the accompanying downvote I got. No offences in the way my question was handled.</p> <p>However, I was rather baffled by the close reason suggesting I go to Super User. As a Stack Exchange user typically staying confined in the sites they are active in and not paying much attention to hot network questions, all I knew about Super User is what is written in the list of sites:</p> <blockquote> <p>For computer enthusiasts and power users.</p> </blockquote> <p>Nothing in that suggests that I could ask any question related to hardware there and maybe have it be on-topic. It sounds much more like a using-software site. It’s not until I actually open Super User’s tour to find there:</p> <blockquote> <p>Ask about … Specific issues with computer software, <strong>hardware</strong> or networking [bolding by me]</p> </blockquote> <p>There is also <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/552/4326">this recent meta-question</a> which basically asks why hardware support is off-topic here with an answer stating that some hardware support may be on-topic.</p> <p><strong>In my opinion, this information should be easier to find for new users to this site</strong> (who are already familiar with Stack Exchange in general but not an expert on different sites’ scopes).</p> <hr> <p>I therefore suggest adding a note somewhere along this Stack Exchange’s tour that questions about existing hardware may be on-topic at Super User to prevent others running into this issue.</p>

<p>I thought we'd already done this, but apparently we hadn't.</p> <p>I've added a note that Super User may be suitable both at the top of the <a href="/help">help center</a> and under the "don't ask about..." section of the <a href="/tour">tour</a>.</p>

558

2016-09-09T13:41:07.770

Can we be more helpful?

|discussion|scope|

<p>I just wanted to remind everyone that this site is in a tricky position with only 1000 questions in one year. I think that, <strong>in the interest of building a critical mass of content and active users we should always err on the side of inclusiveness when flagging questions</strong>.</p> <p>One heuristic that might be beneficial is to give added benefit of the doubt to users that come with a network association bonus. They are much more likely to respond to comments to work to bring their question on-topic than are many of the drive-by "help me!" 1-rep users.</p> <p>For example, right now 11 of the newest 15 questions are On Hold. I reviewed a few and voted to reopen <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/5706/84">one that I think had no compelling reason to be held</a>.</p> <p>(This was also one that was held by the vote of one mod, so I'm also pausing here to remind the pro-tems that their "votes" are immediately binding. My personal opinion is that they should therefore exercise extra discretion in unilaterally closing when there is <em>any</em> room for question: It is often better to leave a comment saying, "I <em>would</em> vote to close this because <em>X</em>," but wait for at least one other user to vote to close before actually closing.)</p>

<p>I think it's well on the way to dying the death, and good riddance, based on the ham-handed, non-reading the answer, just delete (thus eliminating the ability of anyone but the ham-handed moderator that does not read even making a comment) "moderation" behavior I've seen here in the past couple of days. </p> <p>Clean house or kiss it good bye. I'm not wasting any more time/effort here.</p>

560

2016-09-16T14:07:27.470

How do we handle suggested edits that remove links to retailers?

|discussion|editing|

<p>I came across this <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/4116">suggested edit</a>.</p> <p>The edit description states:</p> <blockquote> <p>advertisement redacted</p> </blockquote> <p>Then only change was to remove mentions of a link to <code>tokopedia.com</code>. Note that this was not an actual link to the site.</p> <p>The original text was:</p> <blockquote> <p>Basically the top 6 core have the same socket type and almost the same benchmark result. However, Intel Core i7 3770 is simply cheaper. It's only $335. I actually got a used one for $200 from tokopedia.com</p> <p>Xeon 1290 is simply too expensive and not available on tokopedia.com</p> </blockquote> <hr> <p>At first, I wanted to reject this edit. The answer clearly explains where the user found the product for a certain price. It doesn't link directly to the product though. </p> <p>However, the edit comment made me pause and wonder "Is this spam?" In my opinion it does not appear to be.</p> <p>I am conflicted now. Should these off hand comments about retailers be removed? (I am thinking "No")</p> <hr> <p>My question: </p> <ul> <li>Should we be removing links to retailers like this? I am reading it as a valid attempt to answer the question <em>and</em> provide context to where certain prices and products are available.</li> </ul>

<p>I agree. I don't see any reason to remove links unless there's <em>actually evidence</em> that they are spam. I can't find any in this case.</p> <p>And if there <em>is</em> evidence, this should be handled with a moderator flag. Not a suggested edit. </p>

563

2016-09-30T16:06:33.113

my question was put on hold apparently without too much of a thinking

|support|

<p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/5871/building-a-computer-science-lab">Building a computer science lab</a></p> <p>I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here, it looks like cold war to me. The question was initially put on hold because it was "too broad". I was just asking about the minimal hardware requirements for a workstation: the box itself, display, keyboard and mouse. I narrowed it to "the box" only. Now the answer of the moderator is "it qualifies as a technical support question".</p>

<p>You seem to have a few different complaints. I'll try to hit them all:</p> <h3>Thank you is removed</h3> <p>"Thank you", and other salutations, tag lines, and signatures <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/131009/what-should-i-keep-out-of-my-posts-and-titles">don't belong in posts.</a> This type of thing has been <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/115694/why-is-saying-thank-you-in-question-undesirable">discussed</a> many <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5029/are-taglines-signatures-disallowed">times</a>. I see you are most active on Stack Overflow...<a href="https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/288160/no-thanks-damn-it">this has been discussed there too</a>.</p> <p>No abusive moderation action was taken to remove these two words. The moderator was the person who happened to see it first and edited it according to network guidelines.</p> <h3>The closed question</h3> <p>The question closed initially as "too broad". This was the correct course of action. There are three separate questions. On top of that, you wanted recommendations for a combination of parts. The possible answers to "combinations" are huge. </p> <p>We have, as a community, decided that each component needs it's own question. This allows the user and other users to more easily compare products. A combination answer is very difficult to compare, especially for new users. For example, compare three different machines that have 3 different CPUs, 3 different amounts of RAM, 3 different hard drives and 3 different video cards, but all have roughly the same price. The combinations of low end CPU but high hard drive space or high end CPU but small amount of RAM or any other combination are very hard to compare, if you don't know what you are looking at.</p> <p>After your edit, the question became (and notice that it's still multiple questions):</p> <blockquote> <p>will raspberry pi 3 suffice for the requirements I mentioned above? </p> </blockquote> <p>If I answer "Yes", then we are done here and I haven't made a recommendation. Instead, I've helped you determine if your machine has the specifications to run some software. That's technical support. If, however, I answer "No", I run into your follow up questions...</p> <blockquote> <p>I definitely don't want to go with normal workstation (heat, noise, etc). should I look for more? Beaglebone Black?</p> </blockquote> <p>Should you look for more? Probably. I don't know. I'm guessing you want to complete this task. In which case the answer is "Yes, keep looking." If not, though, I suppose we are done. In either case, again this isn't a recommendation.</p> <h3>How do we fix this question?</h3> <p>Focus on your two products, and ask for the recommendation. You throw your alternative out as literally the last two words of the question and don't mention any thing else about it.</p> <p>Beagleboard Black. Well, now we have two things to compare - Raspberry Pi vs a Beagleboard. We can build a question out of this. You've provided two possible solutions an your goals. </p> <p>You are looking for a recommendation between the BeagleBoard and the RPi to meet this criteria:</p> <ul> <li>Hard budget limit of $2000 for 30 work stations (will need to include monitors/display and user input in this budget). </li> <li>Usage will only be programming in Codeblocks and will need an XSession. Configuration will be up to you.</li> <li>Devices must support a network connection (do you need wired, wireless or does it not matter?)</li> </ul> <p>The next question you ask should be about the monitors. Keyboard and mice are cheap. You don't need anything fancy. For monitors, you will have a budget of $2000 minus either (30 * $36 (for the Pis) or 30 * 55 (for the Beagleboards) + taxes. Unfortunately, you're going to be disappointed that you can't get 30 monitors for roughly $1000. </p>

566

2016-10-01T19:17:27.427

Canon questions and answers

|discussion|resources|

<p>I'm recently started to design a high-end desktop from scratch. Since I haven't done anything like that in a long time, I've been scouring this site for relevant question.</p> <p>The thing is, the good questions are buried beneath the rest. And I got the distinct feeling I'm actually looking for meta questions, like <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/q/516/56">this one</a>.</p> <p>I'm not in a hurry. The parts won't be ordered till December. But I suspect many of the questions I have, have already been answered. I simply can't find them. I vaguely recall I've seen some very good questions in the past though, so there must be something out here.</p> <blockquote> <p>What are the canonical questions, meta or not, about picking the right parts for a desktop?</p> </blockquote> <p>This is a list question. Partial answers are more than welcome.</p>

<p>If you're looking for questions that give general advice on "what to look for when buying X hardware", you're out of luck. Questions of that type have been <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/343/do-we-still-want-general-advice-questions">off-topic since Oct 29 '15</a>.</p> <p>There are still a few questions of that type around that were kept because they were asked before that scope was decided, and were high-quality enough to be worth keeping. Here are a few:</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/23/what-should-i-consider-when-buying-a-gaming-monitor">monitors</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-can-i-evaluate-processor-performance-when-comparing-processors">processor performance</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/330/will-switching-to-ssd-improve-my-write-performance">SSD vs. HDD</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/107/when-looking-to-buy-a-router-for-home-use-what-are-the-specs-features-that-i-sho">routers</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/50/should-i-find-a-processor-with-hyper-threading">is hyperthreading worth it?</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/7/what-should-i-look-for-besides-pixel-density-count-when-choosing-a-smartphone-wi">smartphone cameras</a></li> </ul> <p>That's just about all I can find (half of which I had to resort to mod abilities to find, so there aren't that many anyway)</p> <p>If those don't answer your questions, then think about what you want each component to have, or to be, or to do etc, then ask a question that details those things. One question per component, each with specific requirements, should get you some good answers, and may even form the basis of a 'canonical' question for people to come.</p>

590

2016-12-15T03:48:30.270

Users who constantly ask questions without sufficient information

|discussion|

<p>I am posting this, in reference to <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/6432/i-want-a-cost-effective-replacement-for-my-cpu/6436?noredirect=1#comment10144_6436">this question</a>.</p> <p>I have seen several questions from this user that don't quite give enough information, and when comments are left asking for more information, OP hardly ever comes back to that post.</p> <p>There are already a LOT of on hold questions...so how do users who repeatedly ask questions that cannot be answered, due to insufficient information get dealt with?</p>

<p>We've noticed this pattern too, and have been addressing it with the user directly. There's not much more I can say about that, unfortunately.</p> <p>In general, this kind of pattern usually results in a moderator engaging the user concerned in private and pointing them towards useful resources, while encouraging them to make more of an effort in future postings. If it's not addressed, this behaviour <em>can</em> eventually lead to a suspension, but that isn't something that gets done for just one or two bad questions.</p> <p>There are also automatic quality blocks in place. The details of these are kept secret, but it works out that if your history of asking questions is bad, you will be blocked from asking questions for a period of time.</p>

606

2017-03-04T02:21:30.417

Are storage crates for hard drives on topic?

|discussion|scope|

<p>Referencing <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/6939/looking-for-a-storage-case-for-multiple-hard-drives?noredirect=1#comment11695_6939">this question</a>.</p> <p>Guy is asking about where to store unused drives.</p> <p>My understanding of current scope is that questions concerning electronic devices that connect or communicate with computers are on topic.</p>

<p>Agree. Your understanding is correct in my view; what's being requested here is analogous to a desk - important for computing, yes, but out of scope for this site.</p>

608

2017-03-06T21:40:51.460

Requests for hardware for prank/ possible malicious use?

|discussion|

<p><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/1286/usb-rubber-ducky-alternative">This question</a> got bumped to the front page.</p> <p>From the way it is worded, it is clear that the OP is looking for hardware that can be used for a prank device, but claims not to be looking to use it for malicious purposes.</p> <p>Is this type of hardware request on topic? I mean yes, it connects/communicates with a computer, but the goal of the device is to prank/"mess with" people who have low computer skills, which is akin to harassment.</p> <p>(also, I am surprised there is not an ethics tag for meta posts)</p>

<p>Yes, these are on topic. </p> <p>It is <strong>not</strong> our job to determine malicious intent. If the question meets the criteria we've <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/266/57">set out</a>, then it is on topic. A "prank" device can meet all of our requirements (electronic and primarily a computing platform). </p>

623

2017-09-13T17:12:20.543

Are questions regarding PLC's, associated motors and other peripherals on-topic?

|discussion|scope|questions|

<p>As given in <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/50/what-type-of-hardware-is-allowed">this question</a> and the most up-voted answer, it's suggested that PLC-related questions <em>may</em> be on-topic. However, upon reading the <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/tour">tour</a>, it points out <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">this meta question</a>, which indicates that <em>only</em> consumer-computer related systems are on-topic.</p> <p>I have a question <em>specifically</em> regarding a motor to perform a specific function, that <em>must</em> be able to be driven from a PLC (even if it's as simple as a "move forward" or "move backward" signal), but I'm very seriously confused as to whether it fits here or not.</p> <p>So, is a question regarding a PLC <strong>peripheral</strong> on-topic? Not a PLC itself, but a device that would be controlled through the PLC.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/265/what-is-hardware">latter meta question</a> that you referred to is our current canonical definition of scope. Undo's answer provides a very nicely quotable definition:</p> <blockquote> <p>Hardware is any <strong>primarily electronic item</strong> that can perform more than one task, designed to interface with, connect to, or be, <strong>a primary computing platform</strong> in day-to-day operation.</p> <p>A <strong>primary computing platform</strong> is any primarily electronic item that can <strong>perform meaningful tasks</strong> on its own with minimal external support, and designed to be <strong>operated by a user</strong>, consumer or professional.</p> </blockquote> <p>Now, a PLC peripheral is <em>not</em> a PCP, but the PLC itself <em>is</em>, I'd say - it performs meaningful tasks with limited external support, and is operated by a professional (i.e. you, the developer). Since peripherals for that PLC by definition interface with it, that makes them on-topic under &quot;interfaces with a PCP&quot;.</p> <p>So - <strong>yes, that's on-topic</strong>. Usual rules and guidance about <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/206/8">providing enough detail</a> applies.</p>

625

2017-11-08T21:04:37.967

Are shopping questions on-topic?

|support|

<p>I'm wanting some clarification on whether the following questions are on-topic: </p> <ul> <li><p>What are some good places to buy <em>x</em>?</p></li> <li><p>What is the cheapest place to buy <em>x</em>? </p></li> <li><p>Is <em>x</em> a good place to shop at? (for determining whether certain websites are trustworthy)</p></li> <li><p>Is <em>x</em> a good place to buy <em>y</em>? (for determining whether certain websites are trustworthy/reliable for a given piece of hardware)</p></li> </ul> <p>I've tried to search Meta for some answer to this, but there's no question that specifically asks it, even if some answers seem to suggest that it is the case, and I wanted to clarify.</p>

<p>In general, no.</p> <p>"What are some good places to buy <em>x</em>?" is both a list question and opinion-based. Neither type of question does very well on StackExchange; a question that combines the two would do extremely poorly.</p> <p>"What is the cheapest place to buy <em>x</em>?" is subject to change without notice, and any answer could well be incorrect by the time the author presses the "Post" button.</p> <p>"Is <em>x</em> a good place to shop at?" and "Is <em>x</em> a good place to buy <em>y</em>?" are opinion-based; the corresponding "Is <em>x</em> engaged in deceptive business practices?" is off-topic for this site.</p>

627

2017-12-01T15:10:48.010

Are questions relating to battery drills off topic

|discussion|

<p>I need to drill out the holes on some sunon cooling fans as they are just that little bit too narrow.</p> <p>I've been looking at various drills but cannot decide. Most battery drills contain resistor/ electronics.</p> <p>Are drills off topic and if so is there another stack to which I should go?</p>

<p>They're off-topic. You might ask on the <a href="https://diy.stackexchange.com/">Home Improvement</a> site; they've got a <a href="https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/tools">tools</a> tag.</p>

630

2018-03-28T18:08:59.227

Is this site going to die in beta?

|discussion|

<p>I posted as a new user today <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/9016/memory-upgrade-suggestions-by-crucial">Memory upgrade suggestions by Crucial</a> .</p> <p>Only 2 views for the question so far in 10 hours (Normally this should be reached to more people at least from the first post review queue and newest and active questions tabs? ) - means less active users? </p> <p>No <a href="http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/65287/hardware-recommendations">healthy signs</a> either to be seen even after 930 days in beta.</p> <p>Or any other reason why my question was not reached to many?</p>

<p>It is very true that the participation stats of this site aren't the highest on the network. (They're also not the lowest, though.) However, that's not a problem, nor does it mean we're going to die in beta, and <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/257614/262823">this is why</a>.</p> <p>Essentially, <strong>stats don't matter</strong>. What matters is being able to provide quality answers to quality questions, and being able to keep the site moderated.</p> <p>In terms of quality, we have strict quality guidelines for <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/206/8">questions</a> and <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/60/8">answers</a>; those are well enforced both by the community and by the diamond moderators. In terms of moderation, we have three active diamond moderators who are more than capable of handling the small moderation workload this site provides.</p> <p>So <strong>no</strong>, this site is not going to die in beta any time soon.</p>

632

2018-04-22T17:52:11.253

Is it on-topic to ask about wearables (smart watch, wristband)?

|discussion|

<p>I've read <a href="https://hardwarerecs.meta.stackexchange.com/a/266/9185">this answer (to <em>What is Hardware</em>)</a> and saw the PCP examples, but I still don't have an answer for my question.</p> <p>From those two examples (and especially their explanation in brackets) I tend to believe that it does count as on-topic:</p> <ul> <li>Microphones (designed to interface with PCP)</li> <li>Mixing consoles (primarily electronic, does meaningful work on its own. Therefore is PCP)</li> </ul> <p><strong>So, to be sure - is it on-topic to ask for recommendations about wearables?</strong></p>

<p>Well smart watches typically interface with a phone (PCP) and is more or less, a fairly fancy peripheral. </p> <p>They're also distinct enough that they'd probably make for a good question. I'm going to cheat a lot, and <a href="https://meta.superuser.com/questions/2324/in-defense-of-obscure-niche-hardware-recommendation-questions">pull in a set of tests Jeff suggested in the past for hardware recommendations</a> on SU (they're good rules, in the wrong place).</p> <blockquote> <p>This is a niche, and a clear "power user" niche.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think the modern wearable <em>is</em> that - and they've not gotten that mainstream yet. Recommendations are probably going to be useful.</p> <p>(edited to fit the next point to the situation)</p> <blockquote> <p>This is no mere garden variety shopping question. It's very, very difficult to find smartwatch that dosen't have some kind of major shortcoming in practice. These tend to be uncommon, rare and specialized. Exactly the kind of obscure item you need expert assistance sourcing from your peers.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you want Apple, Tizen or Android Wear? Round/Flat tyre or square screen? OLED or Eink? Wireless or wired charging. The market hasn't quite gotten to the sort of semi commodity form factor yet that PCs and even phones have gotten to.</p> <p>There's still a lot of churn in the market, at least 3 distinct OSes in use by major companies, and various feature choices. For example my current smartwatch has a upgrade path of a nicer model with an older non standard OS, or a newer model that drops features but runs AW2... all on the same hardware.</p> <blockquote> <p>I scoured the web looking for good recommendation threads on this and found maybe three credible links, and most of those were already out of date! There simply isn't any good information on this on the internet, which means it passes all the <a href="http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/02/are-some-questions-too-simple/">Are Some Questions Too Simple</a> tests with <em>flying</em> colors.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yeah - but also, this <em>is</em> the site for hardware recommendations on SE, so this <em>should</em> be where the good information is. </p>

634

2018-08-22T19:35:29.240

On topic : Raspberry Pi accessories?

|discussion|scope|

<p>I have found a few old Kickstart projects, such as <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/geekroo/pipeye-an-advanced-battery-hat-to-power-your-raspb/posts/1323876" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a>, which consist of a case (not on-topic), containing a Real Time Clock and battery power for the Pi.</p> <p>Some have a few extra features, such as a display, or solar power panel, etc.</p> <p>Question: if I detail my requirements, would a question asking for such a thing be on topic?</p>

<p>Yes, that sounds on topic to me:</p> <blockquote> <p>Hardware is any primarily electronic item that can perform more than one task, designed to interface with, connect to, or be, a primary computing platform in day-to-day operation.</p> <p>A primary computing platform is any primarily electronic item that can perform meaningful tasks on its own with minimal external support, and designed to be operated by a user, consumer or professional.</p> </blockquote> <p>This sounds a lot like a component in a desktop or laptop. It's a component designed to interface with the primary computing platform.</p>

638

2018-11-09T04:58:53.340

Should we encourage users not to leave answers as comments?

|discussion|comments|unanswered-questions|

<p>I just joined this site today. After looking through the first page of questions, I see that many of the questions are answered, but just as a comment (see end of post for list). I understand that even though this is not recommended, there are reasons why users do not wish to post a full answer. Is it worth it doing something to boost the answered question count? For example, I could:</p> <ul> <li><p>Expand comments into answers myself.</p></li> <li><p>Leave a comment suggesting to the commenter to post his comment as an answer.</p></li> <li><p>Do nothing.</p></li> </ul> <p>Personally, since this site is currently in Beta, and since the fact that many questions go unanswered is currently being used to argue that this site is having problems, I would prefer to do choice #1. I mean, I am obviously allowed to do so. However, I just wanted to gauge, would this be in line with the direction of this site?</p> <ul> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/10007/windows-tablet-with-no-pen-lag">Windows Tablet with no pen lag</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/10017/harman-kardon-sb26-power-cable">Harman Kardon sb26 power cable</a></li> <li><a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/10046/2x-cmk16gx4m2b3000c15w-4x8gb-on-b450-aorus">2x CMK16GX4M2B3000C15W (4x8GB) on B450 Aorus</a>.</li> </ul>

<p>I think I should also mention that this site is in Beta. What does that have to do with your question? Glad you asked.</p> <p>Beta sites are judged on it's performance. Part of that consideration is the <strong>answer ratio</strong> - the number of questions that contain an answer. As of writing this post - this ratio is looking pretty bad:</p> <p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHKAz.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/JHKAz.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p> <p>Stack Exchange considers a <strong>90%</strong> answer ratio to be on par, and <strong>80%</strong> to be just okay. This site is at a staggering <strong>64%</strong>.</p> <h1>So, how can I help?</h1> <p>First and foremost, refrain from answering questions in the comments. Art♦ already went over this in his response and I'm not here to repeat everything he said.</p> <p>Don't ignore - <strong>educate</strong>. Users have many reasons for leaving answers in the comments, whether that is because they are afraid of rejection (down votes) or just don't feel their answer is on par with the question. This network encourages all kinds of on-topic answers - just because one answer is the best for you doesn't make it the best for me. Politely educate others to move their comment to an answer. Readers shouldn't have to go through all the comments to find the answer they need.</p> <p>If you see an answer in the comment - and <em>you were going to post that answer anyway</em>, <strong>just do it</strong>; now's not the time to be courteous. Now if you <em>weren't going to post it</em> (but you think it's useful), then <strong>post it yourself</strong> if you can build it up to be a full answer. If you want to give the commenter the benefit of the doubt and wait 5 minutes, more power to you.</p> <h2>Now let's get to answerin'!</h2>

651

2019-05-29T09:00:47.360

Can I ask a similar question that already exists but it's outdated?

|discussion|

<p>I'm in need of a new microphone and while searching for that tag I found this <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/q/169/9356">high-scored</a> question.</p> <p>The question body is almost the same to my situation but I have a bigger budget (60€-70€) and I have a desktop (so I can install a external sound card).</p> <p>Also, it comes back from 2015 so things had changed in between.</p> <p>Is it alright to ask another question referring this one or should I go with a bounty there?</p> <hr> <p>_{<b>Note:</b> I could go with a bounty but I would lose most of the privileges.}</p>

<p>You should be okay to ask your new question. We understand that 1, hardware changes all the time and 2, not everyone has the exact same requirements. </p>

653

2019-06-22T18:09:47.827

Should we really encourage cross-posting?

|discussion|

<p>Cross-posting is strongly discouraged on some Stack Exchange sites, such as <a href="https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/">SoftwareEngineering.SE</a>. There:</p> <ul> <li><p>If the question appears to belong to another site (which happens quite often with questions which should be on Stack Overflow), users vote for the question to be migrated if its quality is good enough (or closed otherwise).</p></li> <li><p>If the question is already posted by the same member on Stack Overflow, the author receives a comment explaining that he shouldn't cross-post. This, usually, follows by a lot of downvotes and close votes (although it may be that people who cross-post there are also often the ones who write bad questions in the first place).</p></li> </ul> <p>I see that there is an opposite practice here, especially in relation to the questions about Arduino. <a href="https://hardwarerecs.stackexchange.com/questions/11326/arduino-lcd-with-rgb-colors#comment18187_11326">Example</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Ask on SE.Ardruno, not here.</p> </blockquote> <p>Is this an official practice here?</p> <p>If not, would it be possible to stop inviting the users to cross-post, as the same users may then cross-post on other sites where the practice is discouraged?</p>

<p>Two separate issues here: that comment, and cross-posting in general.</p> <p>As to the former - that comment is <em>not</em> an invitation to the user to cross-post their question. It's a comment indicating that the question is <em>off-topic</em> here and should/will be closed; if the asker chooses to re-post it on a site where it is on topic, that's fine - that's not cross-posting, because the question is only active on one site. It's also not possible here for questions to be migrated - there are no migration paths defined for regular users to use, so migrations can only be performed for exceptional cases by moderators.</p> <p>In terms of cross posting in general - cross posting <em>is allowed</em> on the Stack Exchange network; what's discouraged is the shotgun approach - posting an identical question on as many sites as possible in an effort to just get an answer, any answer. Cross-posting because you're interested in an answer from two different perspectives, or because you want to know about two different facets of the answer, is fine so long as your question is tailored to each site you post it on. It's also generally recommended to cross-link the questions so someone doesn't discover it later and think you've done it disingenuously.</p>