Double standards on web app recommendation questions?

Question

Yes... the webapp-rec problem again. Over the past few months we have put a wall up against new questions and deleted some of the old ones. But that's some not all, so seeing that we have been here for a year, is there a better solution we can give to the web app recommendation problem? Because every day or so, a webapp-rec questions comes in.

To play both sides (where before I was strong on closing these questions),

Could we allow recommendation questions based on whether they are specific enough?

Specific being considered on a case by case basis such that if a user sees a recommendation question they must try to aggressively edit it in shape or flag a mod for attention. If a mod deems, it cannot be saved ... it is closed as Not constructive.

The reason being it is indeed easy to find apps with a simple Google search though at one point does it become difficult enough to rely on WA?

• Need a blogging engine that accepts markdown Is this too simple?

• Web video sharing service with "fair use" protection? How about this one?

• How can I send a fax online? And this?

• Reverse image search engine

The list goes on, we still have 400+ questions tagged webapp-rec so I think we need to be clear on this one.

Answer 1

What's good is when a question comes through where the user has obviously tried their hand at something, anything, and now needs further assistance or a brand new set of eyes in order to push them through the gates.

What's not so good are users too lazy to do one iota of research beforehand and are throwing their arms up into the crowd for suggestions. Suggestions which may or may not then need to fit through a series of tubes of certain criteria that only they would care for.

Recommendations are really shopping questions before the person starts a first attempt. That doesn't sound constructive, nor does a list of answers that try and land.

There are all sorts of web apps out there. But what have you tried at least? Then we've got something more concrete to work off of.

Answer 2

I am inclined to widen the scope the FAQ to allow Web App recommendations.

There a lot of existing questions that are useful. However, I would suggest that the FAQ be amended to include an example of a good question that is requesting a Web App recommendation and also an example of a bad question.

It should also be made very clear in the FAQ that questions which are not explicit enough or well defined will be closed as Not Constructive.

I think that we should also include a section in the FAQ about answering these types of questions*. An answer that simply provides a URL, or Why not give xyz.com a try, should not be tolerated.

These types of questions should be useful in generating traffic to the site and as long as we keep an eye on them I think they will be of more use than a hindrance.

_{* Maybe this should be included in the FAQ for answering any question as standard.}

Answer 3

I think the definition relies somewhat on the answers the question elicits - which is basically what Barry is saying in his answer too.

If it's a bunch (exact value to be determined) of Try abc.com then it's not constructive.

If it's a couple of longer answers that explain why abc.com is the site you need, including possible pitfalls, alternatives etc. then it's probably OK.