The tone of this directive still annoys me.

The core reality is that most of the enthusiasm for this site is going to come from the educated amateurs, shadetree mechanics and grassroots motorsports enthusiasts. Check out the GRM forum: they bin up their topics rather loosely but you won't find a bunch of people screeching CLOSE! after a question from someone trying to solve a car problem on their own (AKA DIY).

For example, the three samples listed are a few words away from being very helpful to me personally (original in italics):

1. How do I remove a dent from my car's aluminum hood without damaging the fire-retardant material? It's possibly a different procedure from a steel hood,.
2. How often should I change my oil in my rear differential if I drive in low traction conditions on a regular basis?
3. Should I use the brakes or low gear on downhills given that I'm concerned about overheating the oil in the differentials?

Constructing rhetorical examples of bad questions in advance of their arrival is a waste of time. We'll know those when we see them and, hopefully, tune them for utility rather than slamming the door on legitimate inquiry.

EDIT: responding to Jeff's points in the comments.

These two phrases summarize the fundamental disconnect:

1. theoretically real mechanics
2. the blind leading the blind

Seriously? How can either of those come across as anything other than insulting? In Jeff's terms, I'm either not "real" or I'm one of the "blind."

Let's consider some fundamentals related to this community and to StackOverflow:

1. Programming is easy: there's typing, compilation and running. Didn't work? Then repeat the previous steps. The whole programming paradigm is very accessible for the casual amateur. Digging into a motor vehicle is different: the procedures are generally laid out in advance but every situation is different (e.g., rust, wear, intended application, etc.).

2. Programming is common: the accessibility of programming drives its popularity. However, many people driving cars would never consider opening their hood to check their oil, much less change their oil. If someone like that is willing to learn, I'm happy to answer their question about what size socket they'll need for their drain plug.

3. Most software is not life-critical: almost no one you are ever going to meet will ever work on real-time, safety-critical software. On the other hand, everyone driving a car is operating a system that can easily kill not only themselves but plenty of people around them. More knowledge for more drivers is a good thing.

Given the above, I don't think the StackOverflow reflex to close basic questions that actually do contain useful information applies. If a question is too general, get more detail. If the language isn't clear, improve it until it is.

The tone of this directive still annoys me.

The core reality is that most of the enthusiasm for this site is going to come from the educated amateurs, shadetree mechanics and grassroots motorsports enthusiasts. Check out the GRM forum: they bin up their topics rather loosely but you won't find a bunch of people screeching CLOSE! after a question from someone trying to solve a car problem on their own (AKA DIY).

For example, the three samples listed are a few words away from being very helpful to me personally (original in italics):

1. How do I remove a dent from my car's aluminum hood without damaging the fire-retardant material? It's possibly a different procedure from a steel hood,.
2. How often should I change my oil in my rear differential if I drive in low traction conditions on a regular basis?
3. Should I use the brakes or low gear on downhills given that I'm concerned about overheating the oil in the differentials?

Constructing rhetorical examples of bad questions in advance of their arrival is a waste of time. We'll know those when we see them and, hopefully, tune them for utility rather than slamming the door on legitimate inquiry.

EDIT: responding to Jeff's points in the comments.

These two phrases summarize the fundamental disconnect:

1. theoretically real mechanics
2. the blind leading the blind

Seriously? How can either of those come across as anything other than insulting? In Jeff's terms, I'm either not "real" or I'm one of the "blind."

Let's consider some fundamentals related to this community and to StackOverflow:

1. Programming is easy: there's typing, compilation and running. Didn't work? Then repeat the previous steps. The whole programming paradigm is very accessible for the casual amateur. Digging into a motor vehicle is different: the procedures are generally laid out in advance but every situation is different (e.g., rust, wear, intended application, etc.).

2. Programming is common: the accessibility of programming drives its popularity. However, many people driving cars would never consider opening their hood to check their oil, much less change their oil. If someone like that is willing to learn, I'm happy to answer their question about what size socket they'll need for their drain plug.

3. Most software is not life-critical: almost no one you are ever going to meet will ever work on real-time, safety-critical software. On the other hand, everyone driving a car is operating a system that can easily kill not only themselves but plenty of people around them. More knowledge for more drivers is a good thing.

Given the above, I don't think the StackOverflow reflex to close basic questions that actually do contain useful information applies. If a question is too general, get more detail. If the language isn't clear, improve it until it is.

The tone of this directive still annoys me.

The core reality is that most of the enthusiasm for this site is going to come from the educated amateurs, shadetree mechanics and grassroots motorsports enthusiasts. Check out the GRM forum: they bin up their topics rather loosely but you won't find a bunch of people screeching CLOSE! after a question from someone trying to solve a car problem on their own (AKA DIY).

For example, the three samples listed are a few words away from being very helpful to me personally (original in italics):

1. How do I remove a dent from my car's aluminum hood without damaging the fire-retardant material? It's possibly a different procedure from a steel hood,.
2. How often should I change my oil in my rear differential if I drive in low traction conditions on a regular basis?
3. Should I use the brakes or low gear on downhills given that I'm concerned about overheating the oil in the differentials?

Constructing rhetorical examples of bad questions in advance of their arrival is a waste of time. We'll know those when we see them and, hopefully, tune them for utility rather than slamming the door on legitimate inquiry.

The tone of this directive still annoys me.

The core reality is that most of the enthusiasm for this site is going to come from the educated amateurs, shadetree mechanics and grassroots motorsports enthusiasts. Check out the GRM forum: they bin up their topics rather loosely but you won't find a bunch of people screeching CLOSE! after a question from someone trying to solve a car problem on their own (AKA DIY).

For example, the three samples listed are a few words away from being very helpful to me personally (original in italics):

1. How do I remove a dent from my car's aluminum hood without damaging the fire-retardant material? It's possibly a different procedure from a steel hood,.
2. How often should I change my oil in my rear differential if I drive in low traction conditions on a regular basis?
3. Should I use the brakes or low gear on downhills given that I'm concerned about overheating the oil in the differentials?

Constructing rhetorical examples of bad questions in advance of their arrival is a waste of time. We'll know those when we see them and, hopefully, tune them for utility rather than slamming the door on legitimate inquiry.

EDIT: responding to Jeff's points in the comments.

These two phrases summarize the fundamental disconnect:

1. theoretically real mechanics
2. the blind leading the blind

Seriously? How can either of those come across as anything other than insulting? In Jeff's terms, I'm either not "real" or I'm one of the "blind."

Let's consider some fundamentals related to this community and to StackOverflow:

1. Programming is easy: there's typing, compilation and running. Didn't work? Then repeat the previous steps. The whole programming paradigm is very accessible for the casual amateur. Digging into a motor vehicle is different: the procedures are generally laid out in advance but every situation is different (e.g., rust, wear, intended application, etc.).

2. Programming is common: the accessibility of programming drives its popularity. However, many people driving cars would never consider opening their hood to check their oil, much less change their oil. If someone like that is willing to learn, I'm happy to answer their question about what size socket they'll need for their drain plug.

3. Most software is not life-critical: almost no one you are ever going to meet will ever work on real-time, safety-critical software. On the other hand, everyone driving a car is operating a system that can easily kill not only themselves but plenty of people around them. More knowledge for more drivers is a good thing.

Given the above, I don't think the StackOverflow reflex to close basic questions that actually do contain useful information applies. If a question is too general, get more detail. If the language isn't clear, improve it until it is.