1

Over the past few days, we have seen a couple of answers on the Is it legal to throw an alley-oop to yourself in a real game? thread having just a sentence. Mind you, the answers aren't wrong but they are just blunt to-the-point answers.

Should such answers be encouraged?

  • As an aside, the current FAQ was introduced in response to a popular meta question regarding relevance. Other SE sites inform users of which content is encouraged/discouraged...which I indirectly attempt to address here. We are still in beta, so expect improvements. FAQ info: questions and answers. – user527 Jan 14 '13 at 18:30
1

Excerpt from the FAQ section about what a good answer is:

Is it supported by "authority?" Back up claims by referencing sources. This is particularly important when discussing rules.
Can I provide a unique perspective? Add something new. If you have insight to add to another user's answer, consider doing so in a comment.
Can I share my personal experience(s)? Expertise shines through.

The question was answered previously by a few users which was supported by evidence from various sources. The two new answers do not offer anything new, perspective-wise or source-wise. Yes, there are some questions where you cannot give references and can only speak through experience of playing, watching or understanding the sport. But this, hardly, was such a question.

My personal opinion is that, when one is trying to learn things about a game through Sports SE, having answers that contain links from credible sources go a long way in helping them understand the intricacies of the sport, than just a one line Yes/No answer.

  • 4
    I agree for those answers. I also agree that, "I'm certified" is like saying, "I'm a rocket scientist." But this should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. – user527 Jan 13 '13 at 3:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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