I myself am amazed at how many times I look at a thread thinking it's a stupid question, and go into it and find answers that not only blow me away, but show me just how much I didn't know about what I thought was basic knowledge.

I know Georgy Zhukov already quotes Carl Sagan's "There are no dumb questions", but I really think that's the best way to go about it. I can understand if someone doesn't want to answer it, but I wouldn't want to see them deleted or cut out. Many of the 'stupid' questions really are people who just don't understand something enough to make the question better.

I also don't think any of us can realistically make the questions better. Those of us who are worried about it already know, and on an open internet forum like this there will always be people who come and go and don't pay attention to something like that. I think it's fine for someone in the thread to ask for a bit of clarifying information, as long as their not to rude about it, and that would help things.

The TL;DR is that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink ask insightful and interesting questions.

I'm the guy who, I say without reservation, has stared at more questions in this subreddit than literally anyone else, and my rough estimate is that at least 25 percent of the questions in the subreddit go unanswered simply because they are tedious for some reason or other (I can break "tedious" into a number of sub-categories, of course). But what can we do about that? Not all that much, unfortunately. We occasionally make posts like this one which help lay out how to ask better questions, but let's be honest, the audience for META threads like that are the users who already do. Its preaching to the converted.

Our aim and mission is public history outreach. To connect lay people who are wondering with knowledgeable folks who can answer, and that means ensuring that the bar to asking in the first place isn't particularly high. The simple fact is that often people just don't know how to ask their question. Asking good questions is a skill. Pre-exisiting knowledge can also be of great help. As such, while it can sometimes be frustrating, and there never is a day where I don't see a half-dozen questions that make me internally groan, we limit the restrictions on questions to things that help us moderate effectively, and try, for the most part, not to police them in a way that punishes the user simply for not knowing enough in the first place. And sometimes the question that made me groan still gets someone who writes an incredible answer for it, although it might have taken a bit more reading between the lines to figure out what was really being asked.

So the short of it is... yes, we could remove the "profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality", but it means one of several things, the two broadest options being either that it means the mod team needs to spend a lot of time helping people restate their questions, or that a large number of people simply are frustrated by having their questions removed because we don't help them rework them. Neither is a very palatable option.

Edit: I would just throw in here a quote from Carl Sagan that is a good unofficial motto of our approach here:

There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question

Isn't the whole point of this subreddit to help educate people?

It seems a bit against the spirit of the whole thing if the 'educated' think that if people aren't already educated enough then they should just not ask questions.

hell, I've got a degree and I wouldn't know how to ask an 'educated' question in this thread, for me history is a hobby or a passion, but it isn't something i have formal education about. Hence my coming here to learn from the pros.

the amazing resources available on AH are so often squandered on the frankly awful questions

Er... squandered how? To my knowledge, there's no obligation for anyone to answer anything, here. Flaired users, mods, and other experts are all capable of determining how they choose to spend their time, and if a given question isn't interesting to them, they can pass right on by like everyone else does. I'm not sure how "resources are squandered" by a post simply sitting unanswered, or being linked back to a previous answer that covers the same ground.

I trust in the experts here to make their own decisions about how they invest their time in researching and writing answers, even if those answers are in response to questions that you deem unworthy of them.

Frankly, this suggestion is a bit presumptuous and seems to directly contradict the mission of /r/AskHistorians. It sounds like you're looking for interactions with people you deem intellectual enough to deserve the opportunity to learn - which is something this sub was neither designed nor intended to provide.

From the AH rules, emphasis mine:

Please note that there is no such thing as a stupid question. As long as it falls within the guidelines here, feel free to ask it, even if you think it's obvious. And, if you see a question which looks stupid or obvious, remember that everyone comes to learning at their own time; we're not all born experts.

The point is to spread knowledge and create interest. I don't think this sub should cater to people educated 'enough'

No offense, but this question rubs me the wrong way. Specifically, it comes across as haughty and condescending IMO. I mean sure, some of the questions asked here may not be of the highest "quality" (whatever that means), but do we expect every interaction in this sub to me a socratic seminar? I am by no means an expert in the field, just a lurker who frequents this sub, but I was always under the impression that actual historians/experts would be happy that the laymen are taking interest in their field of expertise. If that is not the case, then sure, go ahead and start moderating the questions asked on this sub, but I'd imagine the consequence of such an action would be a decline in activity overall.

So you want to regulate people's curiosity? That's a battle you're not going to win. What's wrong with the verified historians answering what they can, and not answering what they can't, i.e. the status quo?

You come across as an... elitist of some sort. Remember, this is askhistorians, not historiansask. That means you'll get laypeople asking ridiculous questions, and if you are a historian you are here to educate them. If someone asks an obviously ridiculous question like "why don't people like Hitler", then you tell them why. If you ignore their "cry for knowledge", then why, as a historian, are you here if not to educate people?

See, my gripe with people who expect so much from everyone is just that, not everyone is nearly as smart as you are to even make a good question. A proper lad would answer with "I'm not sure I understand your question, did you mean [so and so]?", until the question is clear so you can answer it. If you ignore a question just because it's too simple or something then you certainly are not helping your case. If you help teach people instead of moderating them you will be able to reach out with the knowledge you and the rest of you historians possess to more people. Once again, more often than not you have laymen asking questions, and some of might be very young and new to this world, and you just want to ignore them instead of teaching them? It sets the precedence for what kind of person you are (to be a little harsh).

Can you provide an example of what you would like?

Note: others are free to respond.

This is a social media platform open to all, are you really that surprised that the questions aren't up to the same standards as the answers ? It seems like you'd be better off with a separate website where only educated people and the like are welcome (I know this sounds snarky, in a "feck off elsewhere then" type, it's not!)

I love this sub because I've learned just so so much on random topics I never even thought about. From the broad to the precise, I've learned more than I ever did in education. Which isn't saying much, because I never finished high school..but still..

I think the openness on questions is amazing, as the hard working historians here are free to answer it if they want. Maybe they're having a shitty day and feel more picky, not wanting to deal with questions that they view as trite and stupid. Maybe they're having a particularly awesome day and feel like spreading some knowledge on topics that otherwise get ignored.

I find the moderation policy to be more lenient on questions asked (provided they fit within the basic rules of no trivia, homework, soapbox, etc) and more stringent on answers given. I think this is great because it allows the community to participate by asking questions but leaves the answers to the people who have knowledge to back them up.

Contrast this with r/AskScience where the mods are capricious at best concerning which submitted questions are allowed to leave the approval queue. Meanwhile, lackluster or just bad answers will stay up.

I think the policies in place work very well for this subreddit.

Edit: grammar

I agree, but most of the people asking questions including myself are not historian and can’t formulate a question in a way that would be satisfying to historians.

I have a masters degree in economics and work in this field, and when people who did not study or work in this field ask me about economics the questions are often unclear. I think it’s the same with every science. If you are not educated in a particular field it’s hard to formulate a proper question.

I guess the only think us who are not historians can do is be as precise as possible when we ask questions.

Sorry English is not my mother tongue, but I hope you understand my point.

I enjoyed reading this sub because of the simple questions that would spur the curiosity of a person who isn't a historian.

Sure you could go ultra elitist and only allow highly detailed questions that would only be asked by students doing PhDs in history, but I think the reader counts would drop. Some of the diehard of the fans would remain anyway, but that would lead to less people being interested in history.

I for one didn't start my interest in reading about history by opening a 2000 page book about 'shirts of men in 1365' but a more general book on the overview of world history in a certain region and picked what I liked .

Ha! You guys should see Quora! Compared to that den of iniquity and ignorance, the questions here are positively Einsteinian!

Here's a question that gets asked at least once a week: "What was the best tank in WWII, and it's obviously the Tiger, right?" (1). Once a week, swear to god. And that's an above average question, too. Let's don't even get started with what the political questions are like. Just say no.

So, carry on, ladies and gentlemen, carry on.

.............

(1) Of course not, you moron, it's the Sherman.

Nothing can be done that would work, just gotta roll with it. Look at the fact that every.single.thread that gains a little attention is filled with deleted comments from people who seemingly are visiting for the first time, didn’t read the rules, and think this is a free discussion forum like r/history. Even though they get deleted every time, there’s still a constant stream of people posting blatantly rule breaking comments. Idk how the mods don’t go crazy. If people can’t follow that, they’re not going to follow any rule that’s designed to get better questions.

Why not have a TellHistory subreddit where all you excellent historians can just tell us peons the stuff you think we should be asking, and answering it?

I'm serious, I'd sub.

Speaking as a product of the American public education system, I simply ask us all to be mindful of how sorely limited and myopic the gross patchwork of historical information they attempt to impart unto each class of students truly is. In the 12 years that each student has, they are subjected to the priorities of at least two, but potentially three separate Presidential administration's Departments of Education. Directives for curricula, lesson plans, and potentially the teachers themselves, change. Effectively, this means a student, depending on where they are in their yearly progression, can learn one historical topic or be exposed to a single historical period several times over several years or, conversely, completely miss entire subjects or events. Personally, I learned about the pilgrims and the native Americans at least three times, but never learned about the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, or the Philippine insurrection. We also never made it past WWII chronologically, so no Cold War, no Vietnam, no Reaganomics, ad infinitum. Although public schools require a nod toward objectivity on the part of the instructors, this veneer is perpetually penetrated by personal perspective, politics, and ethics. And, of course, ones passion about the subject, on the part of both pupil and instructor, impacts the retention of information, veracity of delivery, and the weight of any extra-curricular pursuit of information.

The purpose of that rambling diatribe is to convey the point that many, if not most, of the American citizenry is pathetically lacking in basic historical knowledge. They are certainly lacking in an overarching, unifying historical narrative, and most tragic of all, so many fail to grasp the poignancy and applicability of a good historical education to their everyday lives and the troubles of today. So, when we who frequent this sub see "bad" questions, try to remember the place of true ignorance they are coming, but, just as importantly, try acknowledge and respect the genuine curiosity with which they have voluntarily submitted their query.

Also, you could...ya know...ask a good question yourself that you already know the answer to, just to see it covered and discussed publicly?

I don't really see this is a huge problem. Posts one considers "noise" can simply be skipped.

OTOH, I think AH might be improved if there were more of what I think of as meta-answers. For example, we see lots of questions that are along the lines of, "What religion were <some people 'way back when>?" And then we get excellent answers regarding what we know of how those people viewed the supernatural, gods, etc. What we do not get are comments explaining that conceptualizing religion as a menu from which one makes a choice, is a way of thinking that became widespread only relatively recently. So one can certainly inquire into some ancient people's way of thinking about gods & whatnot, but asking "what religion" they were is often asking a question that does not fit the time & place.

Possibly such meta-answers are not seen because they violate sub rules. If so, perhaps the rules could be tweaked appropriately.

Can we see an example of what you refer to as "profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality" type of questions? For reference, of course.

I don't mind stupid questions, but the questions I do take issue with are 'leading questions' that start with a statement and follow on with questions from it, but the initial statement is controversial or dubious.

I've seen these especially often related to world war two and 'Germany weren't actually that bad' people. Even if the flaws in the premise are well explained in the comments there's probably a whole load of people that read the question but not the comments and essentially come away having read bullshit that's upvoted.

Is your problem that the questions are low quality, or just not suitable to your personal taste?

Don’t forget this is a sub open to the reddit public to ask all sorts of questions; they don’t all have to be about the color of the toga that the bastard son of the third prelate wore on his sister’s thirteenth birthday.

Yes, a number of the questions asked here low quality or easily found in other ways, but those questions are largely ignored.

If people are answering questions that you regard as beneath you, then by all means, don’t read those threads.

As a non-historian subscriber, I personally get the same learning experience from this sub as the "What If? Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions" book by Randall Munroe (of XKCD).

Do the questions here lead to useful answers? Not usually.

What is useful and fascinating, however, is to observe the historical research process happen professionally in real-time. The application of different types of sources, gathering context, applying judgement as to what happened in the past, is very enlightening for me. Especially when different historians begin to have discussions and even disagreements in a thread.

Knowing that:

What type of butt-plugs were used in the 14th century? Were butt-plugs popular?

has a well-researched, scholarly answer means that I can sleep at night. I know that the levy might break, but /r/askhistorians sure as hell will have an answer, and it will be as close to right as possible.

The quality of question doesn't matter; the quality of answer does.

Well, there's no way someone can give a good answer to a question that's based on an invalid premise. (other than just pointing out the premise is wrong) I think perhaps there should be a rule to require that if a question has a non-obvious premise, the asker needs to cite some source or evidence to support it. I get the impression there's quite a few questions that are more or less just asking for an explanation and also confirmation of some vague impression they got.

Things in the vein of "Why did Andorra fight so many wars?".. what could you answer to that other than "Compared to what?" or just "Where did you get that idea?", neithe of which are in-depth. Unfortunately some people are too happy to attempt a speculative answer without justifying the premise, even if those answers tend to get deleted. Tell people that if they can't justify where the question comes from, maybe that's what the question needs to be: i.e. " Did Andorra fight more wars?" It teaches critical thinking too, to reflect on what you actually know and what assumptions you might be making.

An alternative to deleting that kind of questions could be to just create some flag/tag for them. "Dubious?" or something. That way people could tell that the question probably isn't getting answered because it can't be answered. Or at least make a recommendation in the FAQ.

I don't think we should cut out questions. Just don't answer stupid questions, if you don't want to. And ask better questions, if you have them.

I mean, people asking the questions are obviously starting from a position of ignorance. If you're going to ban all questions from people with imperfect knowledge of the subject, you'll have a dead sub overnight. It's already frustrating to see an interesting question with 7 shadow banned answers. The nature of inquiry is the search for a more perfect knowledge. You don't get to complain about the imperfection of the inquiry and still claim to be interested in providing answers. The only way anyone's inquiries will become "better" is by asking people who know.

Has anyone considered starting /r/AskTheHistoryChannel for all the WWII and Hitler questions?

One idea: Mods or flaired users can post "Questions I wish people would ask me." Perhaps this could be done in a megathread and/or as part of the week's theme.

This would have the twin effects of (a) setting a good example for how to phrase questions, and (b) directly raising average question quality.

Edit: And then the flaired users/mods should answer the questions too, of course!

As a historian, I feel like I need to speak up... There's no such thing as bad questions. What is bad about not knowing something? Or about being interested in an answer that's seemingly random? Are you going to decide what's a "good question", and what's "bad"? Are you going to be the teacher that says to a student "I'm not answering that because that's a bad question"? There's no reason to discredit ignorance, for that's why there's education in the first place.

I’ve had questions rejected, and the very intelligent Mods helped me rephrase the question properly, and I learned quite a lot from the experience. I’ve also seen some questions go unanswered. This is the best sub on Reddit. It seems unfair to criticize it.

I think the mods should straight remove highly repetitive questions, with an auto message directing OP to the appropriate section of FAQ.

However, some repetitive questions are infrequent enough that having a public post directing everyone to a relevant FAQ thread is helpful. For example, the thread on silent reading the other day was illuminating, even if it shows up every few months.

This contrasts the daily questions regarding WWII, Rome, Slavery, and the Middle Ages. Usually exact repeats from the previous day. I think these should just be removed with a private message. If you see the same question multiple times on the first three pages, something is wrong.

How about if you don’t like the question, give it a downvote? If enough people deem it to be a poor quality question then it will be downvoted and will fall off the subreddit more quickly.

I think that it depends on each person according with what information they want to find out and what they find interesting. Some people may find interesting the Cold War Era, for example, or the times where the Roman Empire became one of the largest empires that ever existed. What you are suggesting is that simple, short questions to be banned, but the thing is that AH, in my opinion, is to answer these questions and giving reasons, causes and background to these. What I'm trying to say, although I disagree with you, as all questions, even as simple as they may be, should be answered as they are part of history, I can see your way of thinking

Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality.

The whole "no stupid questions" topic has been covered (much more adroitly) by others already, specifically how a good number of questions go unanswered and why. I'll just add to what they've said that while You may find some questions asked "Ranging from profound ignorance to utter nonsensicality" someone obviously is looking for an answer to that particular question or it would never have been asked in the first place.

Your post is condescending and snotty (implying questions you personally don't like are "not good") and the fact that you used a throwaway account to make it tells me you're too much of a coward to own up to your own opinion(s).

You make your point providing zero examples. Also, you awkwardly backpedal twice about being harsh (err, I mean not being harsh, err). If anything this post is the worst I’ve seen on the sub all week. (Err not to be harsh but err)

I think the questions are normally good and the Reddit system of upvoting good questions filters them just fine.

But then I'm also a proponent of letting the upvotes speak as to comments as well and not creating an awful graveyard of comments in virtually every thread.....but we all know that's never going to happen.

Well OP, the unspoken premise of your submission is that good questions will actually get any reply, to which I say "ha!" I've tried submitting thoughtful, substantive questions while thinking "surely someone will show an interest in this", get lots of upvotes aaaand, silence. No replies.*

It's off putting and frankly inexplicable to me. I don't feel like begging or whining for attention, and frankly, this sub is sometimes guilty of appearing rather snobbish.

*it probably happened under my old user name, not this one. I doubt I've ever submitted a question under this alias.

I'm not an active participant in AH, just a subscriber who occasionally finds some interesting reads from you brilliant people.

That said, the problem, as outlined here, seems to be:

• People ask bad questions without realizing it

• Other people upvote these things because they seem interesting

• Historians have a hard time answering these bad questions because [various reasons the question is bad]

And everyone is acknowledging that the 1st or 2nd points are basically impossible to change, while the pain point being discussed is the 3rd point.

It seems to me that the solution is probably to insert something between 2 and 3. Some discussion has been had already about the hassle of working with a submitter to reword their question... I've got an alternate suggestion.

• People ask bad questions without realizing it

• Other people upvote these things because they seem interesting

• Historians (or other people well-versed in the AH format) make top-level comments with interesting "good" questions they can tease out of the poorly worded questions

• Historians can choose to answer either the original question (if they think it wasn't actually a bad question), or any of the top-level question suggestions

This would turn "bad questions that people upvote because they seem interesting" into more of a benefit than a detriment, because it could allow "interesting good questions based on this bad question" to be grouped under the highly visible, highly upvoted question, while also allowing Historians to not have to pick apart a bad question in order to answer it.

It would also have a side effect of the "sub question" top-level comment being voted on to indicate which of the "child questions" is most interesting to people. And hopefully result in people who ask "bad" questions to still get answers in their post that are interesting and at least partially related to what they were looking for.

It would obviously require a new set of rules regarding top-level comments, and probably a specific format that was required to indicate your top-level question suggestion, but people posting at that level are much more likely to read the META rules (especially if they have to read the rules to follow the prescribed format for suggested questions), so I think you'll have much better luck creating "good question rules" that have an effect at that level.

tl;dr; How about crowd-sourcing the conversion of "bad" questions into good ones using top-level comments?

Is it just me or does a lot of the questions seem like cut and paste from history exams or essay topics. Seem like people trying to get other people to do most their work for them rather then researching things themselves. Many have answers that are easy to find with the bare minimal effort.

I could not agree with this more. Actually, I have considered making essentially this exact post for at least a year now.

Multiple bestof mentions and word of mouth (word of comment?) have resulted in a huge influx of people who frankly never learned the most important (unwritten) rule of this subreddit, namely: Don't talk unless it improves the silence.

Bad questions crowd out good ones, especially when they get upvoted to the extent that crap has such as "what kind of weed did Hitler smoke?", or "where would one have sex in ancient Egypt?", or "what kind of weed did Caesar smoke?" (These are not major exaggerations, as OP and mod comments note.)

The answer is obvious, and it's to remove bad questions. We are blessed to have mods that are incredibly knowledgeable--mods whose opinions I personally trust. Let's use them! As loathsome as it may be for some to hear, there is absolutely no overriding reason for this forum to be democratically run. This actually bears thinking about, but please do so, rather than just calling me a snob.

And to all the commenters saying this isn't what AH is "about", how it was "intended", or how it used to be: I've been here for years--since the heyday, back when there were 7-comment-long responses (to thoughtful questions!) that pretty much passed as introductory texts on the Indian-Pakistani conflict or Mediterranean trade during Republican Rome. Things have changed; don't freakin tell me things haven't changed. This, as in, what's happening now, is not what AH is about. We have the tools at our disposal to--though I gag to use this phrase--make...the sub...better...again...so why don't we?

I know the mod response to this will be something like "we can't make subjective judgments as to what to get rid of"--but I guess my response is...yes you can?

Tl;Dr - None, read the whole post please.

Edit: oh look, downvotes without replies