2

Ok fine, how do I answer questions like records for youngest to obtain a certain title?

6 downvotes in 4 hours. that's gotta be a record.

Anyway so far I just cut down the non-IM stuff and highlighted the 2 parts of background and questions.

7

A few things about this question:

  • "Ok, fine" in the question title.
  • it contains 2 questions: where to find data and how to analyze it.
  • here, you have been suggested to use the FIDE ratings database, which is a reasonable suggestion. In the comments section, you elaborated a bit why this is an incomplete source of data. There is no explanation and mentioning of these efforts in the question we are currently discussing. Currently, this question shows a lack of research and lack of the information\limitations that were already discussed.
  • Before you posted 10+ questions on big lists which were mostly downvoted and are generally very frowned upon on Stack Exchange network. Now we have 10+ of the old question +1 new. I am sure some "record-speed downvoting" comes from this frustration.
18
  • thanks. your bullet 1 is, imo, related to your bullet 4. do you see why (i would think so) ?
    – BCLC
    Sep 18 at 23:29
  • big lists are frowned upon? are you sure? mathoverflow.net/questions/401493/…
    – BCLC
    Sep 18 at 23:38
  • 1
    @BCLC you left out "generally". I specifically placed it in. Moreover, this is community-dependent. Sep 19 at 0:51
  • 3
    @BCLC my bullet number 1 is my bullet number 1. I prefer to avoid guessing games. Sep 19 at 0:55
  • anyway, look the 'ok fine' is BECAUSE i already posted all those questions. what did you expect/did you think should be the case, that i don't acknowledge the previously posted questions? i could either not acknowledge or delete the old ones, but i don't see how i risk avoiding downvotes anyway. damned if i do, and damned if i don't, so i'd rather just acknowledge, so if i'm wrong then i'm wrong in a good way. it's kinda like the debate on giving to beggars vs giving to charities. i read somewhere like giving to beggars is like 'i could be wrong, but at least i'm wrong in a good way' idk
    – BCLC
    Sep 21 at 16:23
  • but anyway anyway back to the chess: as i said in comment above: what did you expect/did you think should be the case, that i don't acknowledge the previously posted questions?
    – BCLC
    Sep 21 at 19:37
  • 2
    The title should convey a short message about the question. "Ok fine" assumes that people know the history of the myriad of your questions. That should not be the case. Also, "ok fine" is a condescending phrase in my opinion, which I translate to myself as "ok, you wanted a question of this type -> here you are". I might be wrong in my interpretation, but I don't believe this serves well to the question itself at all. Sep 21 at 21:14
  • Anton Menshov thanks for the insights. 1 - . "Ok fine" assumes that people know the history of the myriad of your questions. That should not be the case. --> but the downvotes suggest that they DO know right? also they will know the history when they read the post...? 2 - condescending --> really? i wanted to do like the opposite. like i'm surrendering to them. that i admit i was wrong. i thought it was pretty mature or humble of me. so what did you think i should do: delete the other questions and post this new one? don't delete and post this new one pretending the others don't exist?
    – BCLC
    Sep 22 at 10:19
  • i think the pretend option is pretty...like not genuine or something. idk.
    – BCLC
    Sep 22 at 10:19
  • 1
    @BCLC in this meta question, you asked about particular problems with this question. I answered them. If you have a different question, please, post a new meta-question. Sep 22 at 11:05
  • what do you mean? my question is about your answer. am i forbidden to use comments to ask for clarifications?
    – BCLC
    Sep 22 at 19:59
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. Sep 22 at 20:27
  • 1
    @BCLC that is why I asked you for a separate new meta question and was against of continuing a discussion. You are asking questions about other posts in the comments. Sep 27 at 17:58
  • 1
    @BCLC (1) whether they downvote or not does not make a difference. The question should be good on it's own. And "a history + personal feelings" should not really be part of it, particularly in the title. (2) you still keep editing and offering bounties your questions. I do not see the opposite. Thus, my view of it as condescending. Sep 27 at 18:00
  • 1
    I also have a feeling of a discussion that does not lead to anything, that's why I offered chat originally. I am not sure I am willing to continue this anywhere in chat or on meta, as I feel that my feedback goes nowhere (which is fine), but I am not really willing to spend my time on it in this case. Sep 27 at 18:01
3

On the Question:

Even though these questions are not "Duplicates" they are poorly structured and could be easily addressed as one questions. I can look past the data source , how to analyze aspect. Data without analysis is meaningless.

Sample Question

Is there a source for the list of FIDE titled players which contains the date of which they obtained their title?
Ideal critical data elements would be ;
 - Player Name
 - Date of Birth
 - Title
 - Date Title Obtained

Could even add on the end (if it is a concern)

FIDE publicly available records only appear to date back to YYYY. 

On the likely hood of the question ever being answered accurately I think its extremely unlikely these questions are going to be answered accurately. Chess records regarding titles, date obtained etc have historically been atrociously managed. Hasn't existed 100 years yet. In addition to this FIDE focus more on "Ratings" than titles with their statistics. This is further compounded by different time structures. Classical , Rapid , Blitz.

Given that FIDE statistics pre 1970 don't appear to be publicly available it seems extremely unlikely that other data sources out there have more complete records.

Final Thoughts

I understand that its frustrating that these questions have been poorly received. My suspicion on why this is the case is due to the "repetitiveness" of the questions primarily. The "Ok Fine" doesn't necessarily need for people to be aware of the history of your posts etc. It is a argumentative remark leading into the question. By default responses are going to be negative. When I first read the title my immediate thought was regardless of what follows "Ok Fine" I'm certainly not answering or assisting.

On downvoting. I think downvoting is generally a good indicator of the communities thoughts on the quality of a question. Granted we have a large number of "Is Position X better than Y...what is the outcome with 'perfect play'" sort of questions which personally irks me. These questions would be far better directed as "How to analyze the Following position". Teach a man to fish sort of stuff. Yet for some reason these questions don't receive similar response.

1
  • 1
    Yeah I'm rolling back that edit. It's a proverb. Not a political statement in gender. Oct 11 at 2:51

You must log in to answer this question.

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