12

https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1217/what-food-should-i-eat-before-going-to-bed-at-night-so-that-i-wake-up-full-of-en?noredirect=1#comment2365_1217

That question has been getting some downvotes lately, and a person was kind enough to explain the reason - Lack of research.

So, I was thinking about the research part this morning. But, if I search Google, I will get tons of websites saying eat this and eat that. But, how should I know which website is reliable w.r.t health?

So, the counter argument to that was:

it doesn't matter. Just read it and ask about the thing you are skeptical about it here. It will make the question clearer.

But, after I do the research and say this is what I have found - is this true and effective, won't it then be suited better on Skeptics.SE where the answer rate is higher than this site?

Why should I then post here?

The reason of this meta post is not to justify that question but to understand what kind of research is expected and how to form the question such that people get tempted to post here instead of Skeptics.SE?

6

I upvoted @OOker's answer. I'd like to provide an answer of my own as a user, then a moderator.

If after research,

Why should I then post here?

That's up to you. I welcome good questions because they're going to help the site. But after you've put in the effort of researching, if you feel you'll get a better answer on Skeptics, that's your prerogative. If you want a more medical answer, you might be better here.

As a user, I'm not particularly inclined to write a well-referenced answer to any question which shows no research whatsoever. That is true on EL&U, Biology, and almost all other sites I visit. And the feeling is, I believe, quite ancient: in the writings of Sophocles (c.409 BCE) appear the lines,

"No good e'er comes of leisure purposeless; And heaven ne’er helps the men who will not act."

The same appears in the writings of Euripides (428 BCE):

"Try first thyself, and after call in God; For to the worker God himself lends aid."

Or as my mother used to say, "God helps those who help themselves" (not that I'm a god, of course. Today that fable would be phrased differently.)

As a voluntary user, I'm more likely to look favorably on a question that shows some effort (or is particularly interesting to me) than one that does not.

As a moderator, this is a bit trickier, because I want to promote the health of the site. Instinctively, this is still an SE site, where early on Gimme teh codez type questions were not particularly well received or welcome. They were down voted.

New sites always seem to go through this phase of self definition/expectations, some of them for a very long time, and Health.SE is not so different. Also, new users come along who are not regular SE users, so there is more flexibility with those users. Sometimes when I see a simple question without any additional information, I base my response on their SE profile: if they presumably have SE experience, I expect more before the desire to answer the question kicks in; if they are SE naïve, I'll answer more quickly than if they are not.

As a moderator, I also want to see a higher percentage of the questions answered, so will sometimes answer the bare-bones questions, but sometimes not, because the community needs to set the standards as well. We need a community of regular, informed users to do this, and we need to set standards on the quality of the questions as well, either by asking for more in comments, down voting, and/or not answering. That's something every invested member decides how to do for themselves.

3

I'm the one who make that comment. I admit that I didn't write all what I intend to say in my mind.

But, after I do the research and say this is what I have found - is this true and effective, won't it then be suited better on Skeptics.SE where the answer rate is higher than this site?

~> Yes, it will be better for you (and even the internet) if you post skeptical question in that site. Now I'm not a member there, so I don't really have any idea how it works. But I think that's how you should ask.

Why should I then post here?

~> For skeptical question, I think the only reason that you would like to post here is: you feel attach to this site, and want to help it grow. That's all. The health content is not a big impact, I think. I have seen a lot of questions about biology in there.

The reason of this meta post is not to justify that question but to understand what kind of research is expected and how to form the question such that people get tempted to post here instead of Skeptics.SE?

~> Now this is what I'm missing when make that comment. I think just ask questions like you used to ask. You have a lot of experience in the SE system (maybe more than me), so it should be natural for you. Just "tell us what you found and why it didn’t meet your needs". Doesn't matter which site you read, when you find something you are not understand, not enough information, or state something skeptical, just show it here and people will answer it.

You must log in to answer this question.

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