Should I change my policy of refusing to answer the following sorts of question? If so, why?

Question

1. Questions that are advertised by being asked more than once by the same person. (I do sometimes answer such questions, but not if I notice they are repeated).
2. Questions that are advertised by being incomplete so that you have to click on them to get any idea of what is being asked. Do people not realize how impolite that is? (And no, I do not consider my present question to be that sort of question.)
3. Questions that are advertised by being framed in terms of what 'you' think, or has happened to 'you', or what 'your' experience of X has been - or almost any question that includes the words 'you' or 'your'. (An allowable exception in philosophy would be a question like "What makes you 'you'?")

I'm considering posting the following question three times in a row: "Would you answer... [click on link] ...an incomplete question that irrelevantly asked 'you' about 'your' whatever?"

Answer 1

No. I'd say you have a good system of weeding. And I think that's necessary around here because so many people come to Yahoo!Answers with completely different goals and motivations.

Answering repeated questions is a good way to get ignored... I've noticed few users watch ALL the answers for EVERY repeated question; usually they pick one best answer among all the variations and then move on, leaving the rest to be put up to vote and ultimately help no one.

Incomplete questions suggest that the asker cannot summarize. They don't know what they're asking or they just want to play games with you. Some people LIKE to play around with questions and answers. I can't fault them for that. But some people like to actually solve problems.

And, of course, sometimes a question HAS no best answer. It's either an asker fishing around for someone to confirm their own preferences or who has confused Yahoo!Answers with Yahoo!Chatroom. Unless you are equally confused, there is probably no point in conversing with such people. Though sometimes I find I can't quite resist venting against some of the trolls who try and stir things up in this way.

I'm sure everyone around here weeds to some extent, and I laud you for your clearly defined system of doing so. While I'm tempted to be as methodical myself, I'm afraid it would interfere with the zen experience I have around here sometimes, so I'll just have to make do with my own haphazard stumblings.

Answer 2

I have to get in the habit of looking at the questioner's profile to see if they have asked multiple parts of the same question elsewhere.

For example, I answered a question where the person posted three different questions all relating to issues with gay parenting.

I haven't looked at your profile, so I hope that you are sincere in asking your question.

Answer 3

The intial financial disaster of your tale is amazingly distressing. Your dogs having a extreme emergency & the receptionist not telling you to carry the dogs in immediately. You had each excellent to whinge & it does sound like your Vet did his ideal to rectify that difficulty after the very reality by using firing the employees member & providing the follow-up freed from cost. You said your Vet for follow-up care as urged by using the ER. i'm not sensible how lengthy the stitches were in, if the ER gave you a time body for suture eliminating & don't recognize what the wound regarded like. Did your Vet research the wound before the tech bumped off the sutures? If he did not that concerns me. enable's settle for it, this wasn't a person-friendly suture eliminating. Did you get the pastime training from the Vet or from the tech? in my view, I received't take follow-up training on something non-person-friendly from all of us notwithstanding the Vet. therefore i imagine those training must have come from him. notwithstanding, the pastime would not sound like it changed into the reason. the outlet up of the wound ought to were from the sutures being bumped off too early & ought to have in basic terms been in threat of taking position besides. i imagine when you're nonetheless in touch, you ought to communicate this trouble with your Vet as frankly as you suggested the first difficulty with him. in case you sense after the communicate that that's his negligence that led to the choose for the 2d surgical operation, tell him so & ask him for repayment. drugs even at that's totally ideal, even even as genuinely each body in touch does each thing they ought to do precisely excellent, nonetheless at times undesirable issues take position. drugs in basic terms isn't a precise technology, regrettably. no matter if the Vet is at fault or it truly is in simple terms one in all those undesirable success circumstances, i'll't extremely say devoid of each and each of the information. And no matter if you sense you may have self assurance this Vet to care on your pets in the destiny & you may move ahead from this to have an excellent operating relationship is genuinely your judgement call. i'm sensible happy you named that dogs fortunate!!! Take Care. source(s): serious Care Nurse (for human beings) 34 yrs

Answer 4

No. Answer the questions you want to answer. Your time is valuable. If something is flawed in your view there is no reason you should change your philosophy of ignoring it. (At least in Yahoo! Answers.)

Answer 5

If this works for you knock yourself out.

Maybe you're taking this a bit too seriously. It's a way to waste some time...it's not a matter of life or death.

Answer 6

Should I review my policy of people that can't take the time to put in proper punctuation and grammar? You might want to adopt a policy of proof reading your questions.

Answer 7

No, don't change your policy.
How on earth will you define yourself if you do not set and keep standard in this question and answer forum.
For goodness sake, keep what dignity you have!