4

To the letter of SE it seems questions asking like "what is there to do between A and B" or "where should I stop on my way from A to B" are broad, subjective, and without "one right answer".

Let it seems a good few have been asked here and well received. I'll looks for links in a bit...

But personally I've refrained from it even though I have from time to time wanted to ask such questions due to "the rules".

Should I stick to the letter of the SE law or go with the flow of what's been OK in the past? Or should I ask my test question and see how it is received?

4
  • Go for a test question but make it specific I'd say what you're looking for. – Ankur Banerjee Sep 6 '11 at 13:23
  • 4
    I think a lot of this can run into an issue with acceptable scale. I mean, a factual list of all general exhibits between two cities is rather concrete - you can subjectively point out what you think is good but objectively the elements exist between the two points quite definitively. Now, if Point A was "London, England" and Point B was "Tokyo, Japan", then you might have a mess of an issue. Or on a less global scale, say Boston, MA to Los Angeles, CA. I might recommend you put your example question here, for discussion, rather than on the main site. – Grace Note Sep 6 '11 at 15:57
  • OK I asked - Feel free to suggest edits if it's too subjective, too specific, or just plain too long. – hippietrail Sep 6 '11 at 19:19
  • @Ankur: Here was a question of this sort that was closed in its original form. travel.stackexchange.com/questions/450/… I tried to edit it. Does the edited version represent an improvement, or does it still need work? – Tom Au Sep 16 '11 at 19:31
2

At this point, the problem with this site is not that there are too many questions with many being subjective and otherwise bad; it is that there are way too few questions and active users (even when the potential audience is huge). I'd go for it and ask them if I were you. If it's well received, great; otherwise the community will vote it down & get it closed (oh well – maybe we're wiser about what fits here).

Besides, given some details as to what kind of stuff is being sought for, even such questions could be answered somewhat objectively, eh?

Looks to me that travel questions will inherently be somewhat more discussion-y than e.g. programming questions, and focusing too strictly on questions with "one right answer" will probably fail. Personally I'd worry more about getting the site to fly than about "the rules".

1
  • 6
    Caution: content for the sake of content is no good. It's not a good idea to encourage bad questions just for the sake of having questions: bad questions make the site less attractive. I do on the other hand agree with the advice of going ahead an asking, this site is still very much at the experimental stage where there are still many borderline questions to ask because the borders aren't well-defined yet. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Sep 6 '11 at 21:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/296/are-questions-asking-for-recommendations-along-a-route-on-topic
travel.meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-10
124878
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:KML3XO6FO7BEDJ3OOQ75P5TRBR7HGZWP
<urn:uuid:f6b68058-575b-45ec-b48e-a2b760592769>
2021-03-05T11:16:43Z
151.101.1.69
text/html
sha1:ASIGXFDP4M3IT6ZICR4M5D7JQR5MRXPQ
<urn:uuid:df787c45-c4d7-471c-81f6-6325f54be695>
https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/296/are-questions-asking-for-recommendations-along-a-route-on-topic
response
<urn:uuid:a09a41b0-c772-4c43-8ef5-39c484f182bb>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February/March 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-177.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/