11
\$\begingroup\$

I have stumbled upon this question: Site with absurdly powerful characters for D&D 3/3.5. It asks about a site that the querent has seen.

The question does not ask the users to suggest a game, not even a product. It looks more like a resource-identification question to me, but I just awoke and it's very hot here and my judgement could be clouded. I'd rather know what the community thinks.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just saw this after adding the product-identification tag and voting to re-open. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 10, 2020 at 10:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The OP has now clarified: "I was looking for a specific site but, failing that, any will do" and also stated the following regarding KRyan's answer: "Thank you for the links. I'm unsure they're the one I'm looking for (I haven't found either build I remembered over there but there's also a few dead links among the ones listed so maybe it's one of those): anyhow, they're impressive works of optimization and will do fine" So though they were seeking to find a particular site, they seem happy with what they've now got \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Aug 11, 2020 at 12:58

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
\$\begingroup\$

The question does not have enough details; close it

Is the OP looking only and specifically for the site that they remember or will any similar site fit their bill? This is unclear, and as such, what makes a good answer is unclear and the question should be closed as needing more details.

If they are asking for any possible site, I believe it would be off-topic as it is asking for a tool and answers would be link-only.

If they are asking for that particular site, I believe it would be a site-identification question. We allow game-identification, but I'm unsure what our stance is on site-identification.

This Meta can progress more once this detail is provided.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It may be correct that the question should be closed for clarification, but that's not the question of the meta... \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Aug 16, 2020 at 3:57
2
\$\begingroup\$

This question is on-topic

We have plenty of similar questions that are open:

Note: questions being open does mean they should be open. This entire list could be the result of questions that should be closed not being closed. If so, then all of these should be closed, including the question this Meta is about

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Every single one of these has clearly defined criteria for what is and is not a correct answer. I'd argue that none of these are at all similar to the question being discussed. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Aug 10, 2020 at 17:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I mean, I think the question's on-topic, but nothing like most of these questions, assuming it's asking for us to identify a specific site they remember. Most of these are just asking "does this list exist" or "where can I find such a resource"; this Q&A seems to ask "what was this specific site that I was told about". Even if they don't provide enough detail for it to be answerable, which they may not have, none of these questions seem to be similar in format to what they're asking. \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Aug 10, 2020 at 19:13
1
\$\begingroup\$

This question is off-topic

Both link-only answers and tool recommendation questions are off-topic. This question is asking for a tool (a website) and one can answer it with nothing more than a link.

We have some similar questions that are closed:

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your second bullet contains the only similar question. The rest are not similar at all. \$\endgroup\$
    – Thomas Markov
    Aug 10, 2020 at 17:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Thomas They are all asking for sites or tools (sites are tools). For me, that makes them similar \$\endgroup\$
    – Exempt-Medic
    Aug 10, 2020 at 17:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "What is this specific site I'm thinking of" is not a recommendation question; it's an identification question. There is only one correct answer, if OP's able to provide enough detail to identify it... Even if they don't provide enough detail for it to be answerable, which they may or may not have, it would be closed for that reason and not for being a recommendation question (which it's not). \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Aug 10, 2020 at 18:58
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ And also: asking us to help identify the site they were told about doesn't mean link-only answers are the only possible result. Just like most content-ID/product-ID questions, a good answer will explain how it answers the question/matches the querent's description. (If the querent's description doesn't provide enough specific detail to narrow down the possible answers, it can thus be closed as too broad/unclear until that detail is provided.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast
    Aug 10, 2020 at 19:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast Seems like that may be the case. \$\endgroup\$
    – NotArch
    Aug 10, 2020 at 21:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ "These other vaguely similar questions are closed; therefore this question should be closed" is the wrong way to look at this. We close questions because they're unsuitable for being answered under our process. Other similar questions can be pertinent evidence to that issue if they were left open because we can see the quality of answers they produced. But if they were closed without being answered then we learned nothing from them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mark Wells
    Aug 11, 2020 at 17:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think link only answers being invalid are specifically when users just link rule pages instead of explaining them. A proper answer to the linked question should provide context "The wizard 1/arcanist 1/bard 1/druid 17 is able to shapeshift..." etc. \$\endgroup\$
    – Ifusaso
    Aug 16, 2020 at 3:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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