What improvements to FAQ "ask/don't-ask" section based on closed question Q1840?

Question

In researching an answer to a question about Christian Penn, I ran across something I had not known before and considered interesting about her father-in-law, that he was a Mayflower passenger (which I did know) and that he was executed for the murder of a fellow passenger (which I had not known). So I asked a question "what-mayflower-passenger-was-executed-for-murder" and answered it myself. The answer was voted down because it was a factoid I'd entered myself and the question was closed as off-topic.

I now understand I should not have answered the question myself based on "is-it-ok-to-ask-questions-to-which-you-already-know-an-answer" and the fact that genealogy is still in beta.

The closing for off-topic surprised me at first since it was clearly family history in my mind (a significant number of Mayflower descendants are descended from John Billington including a former US President) and I discovered while researching a genealogy.se question. Some of the discussion on 'history.se vs genealogy.se' focuses on ethnic groups vs individuals but this was an individual. It was off-topic so that implies it could not be improved to be on-topic (eg by including I found while researching information on his daughter-in-law Christian Penn and this might explain why not much is written about that family). So that led me to try to understand what facts belong and which do not belong, and asking this meta question so our FAQ could be improved.

What should we add to the faq "ask/don't-ask" so questions like this can be avoided in the future and closers can point to specifics in "ask/don't-ask' section of FAQ?

In general, I think all questions voted closed as off-topic should prompt discussions in meta and lead to improvements in FAQ.

Answer 1

As with most genealogical questions, context is of primary importance. The difference between a Trivial Pursuit question and a family history inquiry may be found in the reason the question is being asked.

In this case, investigations into the apparent consequences of his early and sudden death (such as a widow living in poverty or a grandson adopting a new surname) could make the fact of his execution a relevant subject.

Taken in isolation, the question is no more genealogical than "How many vertebrae are there in a giraffe's neck?". Arguing that someone's ancestor made the discovery of the correct answer can not rescue that question either.

Another factor that might redeem a question about which there is doubt would be the capacity for the answer to illustrate a general principle or technique that others could apply. If reporting the execution of Billington afforded some insight into the need of the fledgling colony to establish a system of criminal justice records, then it may be of general value.

Answer 2

The problem wasn't that you asked and answered your own question. Instead, the problem I see is in the quality of the question and the answer. As Fortiter says, it sounds more like a trivia question than a problem about a real, actual problem that you're facing.

Here's the thing about that little blurb in the blog and FAQ. It's easy for someone to ask a good question about a real, actual problem. But to ask something you already know the answer to and make it sound legitimate takes considerably more effort.

One thing that can help you is this: You did something to find that answer. How did you find it? What process did you follow? The process you used is perhaps just as interesting, if not more interesting, than the actual results!

Consider this as an example:

Q: A friend of mine is searching for an ancestor who may have traveled on the Mayflower. He checked the records at site X, and that led him to searching on site Y, which contains a lot of records from passengers on the Mayflower. There is no sign of this persons ancestor after arriving in the New World. Why are we not able to locate what happened to this person after he arrived? What would be a reason for this disappearance, and what should I try next to hopefully locate this person?

A: There were not very many deaths on the Mayflower. Most of the deaths to the passengers occurred after arriving in the New World. Therefore, this death was recorded differently. I did a search of X and located some information about deaths at sea during travels from Europe to America, and I discovered that X had died on the ship as a result of .... ... .... To see this for yourself, visit site X and enter these search terms.

Keep in mind this is just an example, so please ignore any factual errors on my part. However, I really think your question, and the answer, could be significantly improved to focus on the process. Then at the end, you could announce the result, sort of as a demonstration of the type of reward the process is capable of yielding.

This would also give you an opportunity to show some proof, as you basically make this claim in the answer without telling us how we can verify it. Since you found this person's ancestor, I'm almost certain the community would enjoy learning how you got from point A to point B.

Therefore, just because the question and answer is closed and downvoted, don't let this stop you from trying to improve it. Think of it as a learning experience, as well as an opportunity to create a great Q&A piece that could very well be reopened and upvoted. (There are no guarantees though, but it doesn't hurt to try!) Good luck!

Answer 3

Certainly crime in the early settlements is something that impacted on the lives of our ancestors, and in this specific case, Duncan, your ancestors!

We already know it is interesting, what we have to figure out is your lingering question about the event.

Writing great questions isn't easy. I hope you'll give this one another shot from a renewed perspective. --GeneJ

Answer 4

Of benefit to members old and new, is the cue word, "Should" as in "Should I ...?"

Often, when a question infers "Should I [do this or that]?" it has the potential of being interpreted like a poll question (even if not intended).

See Fortier's comment here: Is it crass to record cause of death? What about for suicide?

And my earlier edit, to the question that originally read, "Should step, foster, and adopted relationships be included in descendant charts and reports?" Are there standards for including step, foster, and adopted relationships in descendant charts and reports?