Let us see a post by user Mark Roger on StackOverflow. They have a very simple title: “What does “use strict” do in JavaScript, and what is the reasoning behind it?” The question doesn’t appear specific or detailed (Eric Raymond would say it would be a stupid question at first), but cements the idea that this is a question on the syntax on JavaScript. It presents a general objective to the readers. The substance of the actual post, however, represents what is contained in a smart question.
In one whole post Mark Roger managed to carve this narrative with the conflict and his attempts at solving so far. Mark explains that “he goes through JSLint, presents the error, notices the use of use strict on other but wishes to understand it’s utilization. He couldn’t find any material on “use strict” Google this due to the lack of history behind the use of “use strict;”. He gets a detailed answer with a link to a very relevant article and excerpts that explain the usage of “use strict;”. Mark practically gets everything he needs with that one answer (and more). There’s a simple courtesy that is presented so that one user may answer and explain the resource that holds the answer.
Now we throw user Arian under the bus and refer to their post “Android Listview animations that don't suck [closed]”. The post itself reads: > I was looking here. http://android-er.blogspot.com/2009/10/listview-and-listactivity-layout.html >It... sucks. One at at time? Also where can I find some cooler effects? Google is giving me that page like 6 times on 6 sites. Hurray for SEO . This isn’t a very smart question for one reason that it really does lack insight and substance. What does Arian want? A better animation with cooler effects isn’t very specific. If someone came up to me and asked me for better pizza with delicious toppings, I wouldn’t even know what to give him. “This pizza sucks. One at a time? Also where can I find better pizza, it’s like the same pizza over from Dominos/Pizza Hut/Papa Johns.” Thankfully he got an “alright” answer but in the mean time the thread ended up closed as StackOverflow expected answers “to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.” Figures.
In a software engineering perspective, details are very important. Smart questions are expected to return with smart answers. Smart answers can vary, it can range from paragraphs to a single answer. The idea is that a questions supplements knowledge, and if the asker is met with answer that doesn’t supplement the intended knowledge that is to be gained, then that wasn’t an adequate exchange of communication. (That or people who aren’t qualified to answer the questions are the only ones answering the question.) The result of inadequate exchange of communication is that misconceptions could be birthed, and in group projects that would lead to problems in implementation or the like. Questions if I haven't emphasised it already, is intended to do away with existing misconceptions, or strengthen insight on a certain subject, such as Mark Roger and his understainding of utilizing "use strict;".