Yes, in the context of "node consideration", I did. No, it wasn't much about "basically, be constructive" (though, being constructive is certainly also useful in that context). It was particular to a process like node consideration where a request for privileged action is asked for and voted on but can't really be commented on. For such, the request needs to be very specific (and the person making the request needs to be highly convinced that the action is the best action).

In other situations, it can be potentially beneficial to not offer an answer but to instead offer a suggested direction for finding an answer. But such can easily fail.

Fair point. But the OP in this case is the "subject matter expert" regarding the content of the post. No one could compose a better node than he. He just didn't expend the effort in this case. It's not that he couldn't make a much better title; he just seemed to have forgotten the importance of doing so.

He just didn't expend the effort in this case. It's not that he couldn't make a much better title; he just seemed to have forgotten the importance of doing so.

Exactly wrong in every case:

1. I chose the title very carefully.
2. I used the one I did because I couldn't think of a better one.
3. I have not forgotten the importance of a good title; but that does not apply to this question.

   It's a question no one else will ever seek the answer to.

You just didn't understand the question and for some reason that has put your nose out of joint.

---

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.