I answer questions on Stack Overflow a lot, and also in the #python IRC channel. There’s a common dynamic in both environments, I’ll describe it by giving aliases to three participants:

BaffledNewb asks a simple question, but the question itself strongly hints at a misunderstanding of his problem, or of the best possible solution. HelpfulNewb answers the question literally, giving BaffledNewb what amounts to bad advice, and missing an opportunity to help him understand the big picture. GrizzledExpert chides HelpfulNewb for answering the question “wrong,” and tries hard to get to the bottom of BaffledNewb’s real problem, or makes an assumption about what he really wants, and gives that answer instead.

At this point, the conversation can go a few different ways, sometimes all at once. Popular next steps are:

HelpfulNewb insists he was merely answering the question, and wonders out loud why GrizzledExpert has to be so obnoxious. BaffledNewb is outraged that his motives would be questioned, gripes about not being able to get a simple answer, and wonders out loud why GrizzledExpert has to be so obnoxious. HelpfulNewb points out that of course his answer is usually a bad idea, but perhaps BaffledNewb has unusual, valid, but undisclosed circumstances that makes it a reasonable answer. HelpfulNewb claims that he never said his answer was a good idea, just a technically correct answer.

All this came to mind again a few days ago when three questions and answers fitting this description appeared on Stack Overflow in quick succession:

There’s really no excuse for giving simplisitic, bad, but technically correct answers to mis-guided questions. I understand the desire to give an answer, to be the helpful knowledgable one. And Stack Overflow in particular inadvertently rewards speed.

But answers like these only cause damage. At the very least, wrap them well with a thick layer of bubble-wrap in the form of cautions, caveats, pointers to likely better ways to solve the problem, and so on.

If the questioner really had one of the unusual circumstances that meant they needed a literal answer to their oddball question, they tend to mention it up front. In my experience, doubting questions like these pays off much more often than it turns out to have falsely accused a curious expert of being a newb, though of course that sometimes happens.

The #python IRC channel on freenode has a bit of a reputation for being full of grizzled experts who can’t answer any question no matter how straightforward without grilling the questioner about their motives and needs. I myself have argued for less of this, and being more trusting of the questioner. (Actually, as I’m editing this, I just answered a question in #python in a way that other grizzleds didn’t like!)

But if you do this kind of answering long enough, you will learn to recognize the misguided question, and push back on it. I don’t feel at all bad about downvoting the answers and calling people on it.

A common failing among GrizzledExperts, though, is being too blunt. When a beginner asks a question, it’s almost never useful for them to get this in response:

Why?

That’s too short, too blunt, and is interpreted (perhaps correctly!) as, “you are wrong,” setting up a conflict right from the start. More words always help:

That’s an interesting question, it sounds like having more context would help us answer it well. Can you tell us more about what you are building?

Helping intelligent but lost beginners is not easy, it requires a healthy mix of technical know-how and interpersonal skills. The GrizzledExpert definitely has the first, but often not enough of the second.

My advice: