Let's take a look at these two questions.

I wasn't a fan of the first one when it was asked but I didn't intervene as I was interested if there is an approach to solve the problem eventually. As it seems, there was none and it was closed.

A few days ago, another user asked basically the same. What are [add nationality, social position, etc.] interested in? As these groups tend to be really huge, a possible answer might be extraordinary long or can't cover all aspects. So in the end, we might end up with an unsatisfying answer.

What is our opinion of that? Should we answer these or demand for more information? And when information is delivered and the group still is relatively big, should we still answer the question?

I ask because I have the fear that we answer these questions and future users might end up dealing with problems which haven't been considered thoroughly enough and therefore haven't been added in the answer.

1 Answer 1


I don't think this really depends on the size of the group or audience. It's possible for a question to be well defined and limited in scope for a huge audience, and it is possible for a question about a narrow audience to be hugely open and broad.

What really matters is how addressable the question is. If the question is not answerable because of insufficient details, then it needs more explanation, if the question has too many possible answers that don't have good support, then it is either too broad or too subjective. There are other issues that come up in these questions other than the size of the audience or group, so I don't think we really need a policy about such size. Just let the question stand or fall on its own merits.

You must log in to answer this question.

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