[matsemann]

I'm sorry, but if people often do this to you, maybe reflect on them actually being right? Or that you're legitimately asking a stupid question given your self-proclaimed lack of expertise?

People don't answer that way to be smug or so. They do it because the thankless person they're spending their own free time helping will just come back with a new asinine question the moment one answers their posed question. It's from experience after helping thousands of people, not pettiness.

If perhaps you're the one in a million case where this isn't applicable, just add the context, then. Don't be angry about having to do it, that's quite entitled given that you're asking people to solve your problem for free..

[skohan]

Did you reflect on the case that actually you might be the smug one in this scenario, assuming that every person who asks a question doesn’t know what they are talking about, and you know better than them?

I have experienced this many times, and it’s extremely frustrating, when people ask for the context, and I answer something to the effect of:

> the context is quite hard to explain but I assure you I thought through this question and this is precisely what I need to know

And people will still insist that you don’t know what you are talking about and this must be an XY problem.

Even in the case that someone might be wondering down the wrong path, it’s more valuable for the community to let them make their own mistakes and learn from them. That’s how we become experts, not from blindly trusting the “authority” of people who spend a lot of time earning karma on Stack Overflow.

I think it’s good to answer a question in the form: “this seems like a strange question because X, but here is the answer”. It’s also fine to ask for context.

But it’s quite arrogant to harass someone into providing context until you are satisfied they are solving a problem in a way you deem worthy. If you don’t like the question you’re free to not engage with it.

[pickledish]

> > the context is quite hard to explain but I assure you I thought through this question and this is precisely what I need to know

I dunno, I mean, to me this just sounds like the "senior developer" phrasing of the same logic that the noob was using in the linked page. The core problem is that you don't know what you don't know, right, and no one is immune to that, regardless of age or experience.

IMO that we should all try to avoid believing things that sound like "I assure you I thought through this question and this is precisely what I need to know", since -- while we may be right pretty often (maybe even more often than not!), there will be times we're wrong, and in those times, our attitude about it will make us even harder to help than the "noob".

[skohan]

In some cases the context is hard to explain because it's complex, or it relates to something about the domain of the use-cases which is very particular to this implementation. If all you need is some small detail, like how to accomplish something with X library, it would be a waste of everyones time to write several paragraphs to explain some context which will be irrelevant to everyone else.

[albedoa]

> the context is quite hard to explain but I assure you I thought through this question and this is precisely what I need to know

Oh man, I field questions on a technical subreddit, and you wouldn't believe the sheer number of non-expert askers who confidently believe this. It doesn't take much follow-up to realize that not only is the context easy to explain for anyone who truly understands it, but the asker is actually asking about X.

You are one in a million, congrats. The vast majority of people who say what you said are bringing their own arrogance, simultaneously accepting that they need help while preparing to reject the help of the actual experts they are appealing to.

> “this seems like a strange question because X, but here is the answer”

This is a good first response and how I answer suspected XY Problems. It often leads to the asker reevaluating their assumptions, which is a valuable teaching moment and the goal if my true motivation is to help people.

[uoaei]

The simplest way I can put it is, be careful that you're not rationalizing when you ought to be reasoning.

The former is the main source of the XY problem, and comes up very often in cases where people are stuck and asking for help. The main issue they would be having is that they're framing the problem incorrectly in their heads and working through the logic of the ideal solution based on faulty grounds.

I would like to point out the subtle irony in responding to these comments with a meta-scale XY problem: you think your problem is other people don't see the Y for what it is (people don't understand my questions are really about Y and not about X), while you are yourself blind to the X (I may not be framing my problem correctly in my mind which is leading to my overconfidence that it is Y and not X).

[matsemann]

If you know what you're talking about so well, why is it so hard to explain the context? You know the old saying about if you can't explain something, you don't really understand it.

If you know what you're talking about so well, why are you unable to solve your problem? Perhaps the context would help someone help you.

If you can't be bothered, don't bother asking for others to use their own time to help you.

[marcosdumay]

> they're spending their own free time helping

Oh, man, if it's such a bother, just don't. Nobody is forcing you to spend your own free time.

But well, let's be clear. This is a Stack Overflow problem only. And it's Stack Overflow only because every interaction on that site includes a veiled threat of "do what I say or I'll make sure nobody ever answers your question and you are blocked away from this site".

Any unreasonable comment on a random forum is just a bunch of text you can jump over. Any unreasonable comment on SO is a demand from unforgiving authority that people do your bullshit. People have every right to be pissed of the people making those comments.

> If perhaps you're the one in a million case

From the answers I see on SO, the odds there are around 80% that you are wrong.

[matsemann]

From me reviewing thousands of questions in the review queue, odds are you're the one in the wrong. You perhaps only see the cases that actually survived.

When you have to weed through a hundred questions to see the one of any actual quality, it's no wonder people seem a bit jaded. I know it's a meme here that SO is super bad, but no one would visit if it didn't have the strict moderation. It would be a waste field of low quality stuff.

[marcosdumay]

Yeah, that model of unpaid people weeding through thousands of questions in a review queue... is not a great one.

Just the fact that SO made it barely work is incredible.

[rprospero]

> This is a Stack Overflow problem only.

Were this only to be true. I first encountered this issue on a coding forum before StackOverflow even existed. Though the term XY problem hadn't been coined yet, there was a regular poster who would come in and accuse people of asking the wrong question. Someone would ask how to make an HTTP connection in Objective-C and he'd explain that Objective-C was the wrong tool for that job and that they should be using C#. The poster would then explain that they were writing an iPhone app, ruling out C# in early 2008, but he would then explain that an iPhone app was the wrong tool for the job and that the poster should be writing a Windows desktop app. Someone would point out that making an iPhone app was a decision made at the CEO level and beyond their capacity to change and this fellow would say that they should quit their job and work for a company that makes desktop apps for Windows.

[permo-w]

the general gist of what you’re saying is fair, but I’m extremely sceptical of the claim that there’s no smugness involved. these kinds of forums are full to the brim with smug, vindictive assholes who can’t wait to point out how silly and misguided you are. in my experience there’s no correlation between your propensity towards helping people online and a positive disposition

in fact there are definitely people who, if they aren’t helping as an excuse to be rude in the first place, feel it’s okay to be rude because they’re helping. you get this offline too. Gordon Ramsey is a good example

[rendaw]

Even if they're wrong, why not answer their question as stated?

If they're asking how to delete all the files on their root disk, tell them how, they can try it, and either you've solved their problem or they've learned something valuable. But more importantly, maybe someone else will come along who actually does want to delete all the files on their root disk and be helped by your answer after the fact.

[relix]

Of course, because every time it happens, unless I don't want the answer, in order to move forward I do need to explain the context.

So I do. And invariably either the original responder goes radio silence, or admits that my question is the correct one and they can't help me with it.

I think saghm really hit the nail on the head with his YZ answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36080243

[petabyte0]

People do it often because it's a cheap way to feel smart without putting in any effort. It's the same reason how people mention Dunnking-Kruger any chance they can.

I doubt adding full context would help much in terms of getting a quality answer. Someone who answers questions in good faith will answer if they are there. All it would do is remove all the XY people I guess