This question is based on the conditions placed for answer by the following questions:

Who was the boss, and
Samedi back-of-train .

Since the site is meant to ask and answer questions from an audience whose answering capability or provenence is not well known , should the site allow questions that limit the qualifications of the answerer?
And, how is the qualification measured or validated?

While helpful to the movie afficianadoes of the site, the questioner will have limited or no answers and possibly (probably) no method of answer acceptance.

  • I placed limits for excepted sources for answers on the Who was the boss question because I didn't want it to become a theoretical discussion. – Kevin Howell Mar 2 '12 at 23:13

All this is talking from a general tone and should be read as such.

This comes back to an argument about acceptability of answers. If the author of the question is leaning towards a specific point about a question, it should be very clear what that point should be.

(These questions do accomplish that and are, in fact, good questions to ask here.)

From the answerer's perspective, it makes it a challenge at the very least to come close to what the author is looking for. However, I do not see a reason against a perfectly valid answer that uses proper sources and defends their claims as to why they think it answers the question. If the author does not like the answer, they can just comment as such and move on. The community then steps in and pushes the answer in the way that they feel it should go, whether up or down votes. The person that answers it should just leave it and let the community decide how to better handle whether they feel it was given a good try. If there is no effort, then that result should be self explanatory.

Eventually, the author might receive the answer they want, and it doesn't matter if it gets downvoted to all oblivion, if it is what they want, they will accept it as the answer.


For the Who's the Boss One, I think they really mean they want sources (by the creator or writers), not just here-say and ideas people have.

I've updated the question to reflect this.

As for the James Bond question, I don't see any issues with it. He's essentially asking for sources on this particular plot point outside of what wikipedia has to offer.

  • I didn't realize I wasn't clear on that. Could you tell me what you edited? Or is there a way I can see what's been edited? Also that is what I meant. – Kevin Howell Mar 2 '12 at 23:08
  • @KevinHowell on your question you'll see my username with "edited [time frame] ago". If you click that then you'll see the revision history. – DForck42 Mar 3 '12 at 6:46

Very good points made by DForck and TylerShads, and I will try not to repeat.

Personally I think that it is perfectly fair for the OP to set the criteria by which they will accept the answer, and I don't think we should disallow that.

Basically it is up to the community through comments and votes to push the question or the answer in the direction it thinks is suitable.

I don't really think it is appropriate for us to try to deny OPs the right to do this - and it would lead us into grey areas in questions that would be difficult to be consistent on.

You must log in to answer this question.

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