Don't answer the first question • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't answer the first question

#41

Post by paultopia » Mon, May 18, 2026, 6:01 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #14

paultopia wrote: post #4

While this strategy is fine for clueless users, I suspect that it will lead to immense frustration for the ones with clues

In my experience, the ones who most fervently believe they have such “clues” are often the same ones who lack them. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve encountered engineers who become indignant when someone tries to redirect them to safe, scalable, and operable ways to solve problems. What they often want is to have the problem solved their way because it would be less work for them or otherwise advance their…

I mean, yeah, if you’re selling someone a product it’s pretty fair for them to expect, or at least hope, that it will reduce their workload and advance their personal interests…

Re: Don't answer the first question

#42

Post by inquist » Mon, May 18, 2026, 6:45 PM UTC

jasonshen wrote: post #13

The funny thing is, this works well with people too. Not to literally not answer, but dig into the question or problem they bring up to understand their mental model and whether there was just a miscommunication or an actual disagreement.

> with people too

I'm pretty sure the article is about interacting with people.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#43

Post by mathisfun123 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 6:47 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #35

mathisfun123 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After becoming familiar with XY I have learned to specify "yes this is really the problem I'm trying to solve". Invariably you still get people asking "are you sure".

If you are sure, you're generally not going to answer "Yea, I'm sure", you'll answer "Yea, I'm sure because A, B, C" In fact, if you're asking on a forum about how to solve X, be sure to add "because A, B, C" or you're just wasting everyone else's fucking time. The more details you put up front, the more apt you're going to get the answer you're looking for in the first place instead of wasting everyone elses time of…

> you're just wasting everyone else's fucking time

you sure you're not the one wasting people's time by demanding they convince you of something you don't have any need to be convinced of - like did you know that just answering a question at face value is a completely plausible option?

Re: Don't answer the first question

#44

Post by lelanthran » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

ramon156 wrote: post #11

This isn't a black-and-white tactic. If you do this with people who know their stuff, they will just take it as you undermining them.

> If you do this with people who know their stuff, they will just take it as you undermining them.

That's because they realise that other party is simply trying to answer the question they wished was asked instead of the question that was actually asked.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#45

Post by mook » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:30 PM UTC

advisedwang wrote: post #34

paultopia wrote: post #4

While this strategy is fine for clueless users, I suspect that it will lead to immense frustration for the ones with clues

People who really have a clue add enough context in their request to understand why they are trying to do the thing in question.

People who really don't have a clue ignores the added context and answers the question that wasn't asked anyway, because they've answered that particular question before.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#46

Post by ncallaway » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

locknitpicker wrote: post #29

dematz wrote: post #21

Probably a lot of comments will bounce off the title to discuss the XY problem in general, and especially stackoverflow. The article does claim to go further than XY though! "Diagnosing the ask" and "When they’re missing the philosophy" seem to me like traditional XY problem answers - the user doesn't know what the right question is, we need to step back to guide them. "When the product needs to change" on the other…

> This feels much less condescending to me than traditional XY where it's just tech support for a dumb user. Instead now figuring out questions from enough users helps direct new features. I don't really agree. I think the blog post tries to put together a case that a textbook XY problem is not a XY problem because they explore a way to force Y onto all users seeking X. It's still condescending to accuse users of bei…

I don't think that's it at all.

If a user says: "how do I do X in your product", I think a response of "Hey, there's not a great way to do X right now. We're thinking about the best way to make that work in the product though, and want to better understand what you're trying to do and why you need to do X. Would you mind spending 30-45 minutes talking to us about your specific needs in exchange for a $XX incentive?" strikes me as very different from what you're describing

Re: Don't answer the first question

#47

Post by stronglikedan » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:45 PM UTC

> there isn’t an easy way to do that, but what’s leading you to collect traces large enough to want to split?

That's basically every first Stack Overflow answer. It was obnoxious then, and it's obnoxious now.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#48

Post by pixl97 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 7:55 PM UTC

mathisfun123 wrote: post #43

pixl97 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are sure, you're generally not going to answer "Yea, I'm sure", you'll answer "Yea, I'm sure because A, B, C" In fact, if you're asking on a forum about how to solve X, be sure to add "because A, B, C" or you're just wasting everyone else's fucking time. The more details you put up front, the more apt you're going to get the answer you're looking for in the first place instead of wasting everyone elses time of…

> you're just wasting everyone else's fucking time you sure you're not the one wasting people's time by demanding they convince you of something you don't have any need to be convinced of - like did you know that just answering a question at face value is a completely plausible option?

>face value

Funny term to use as it has a very particular meaning of something that cannot/should not be interpreted because it is well defined.

This is a common flaw of the programmer type, especially when they go about writing code and documentation. That is, that what they are writing can only be interpreted in one way.

Then they toss it out into the real world and it turns out every human has a different interpretation, the runtime operates differently based on the phase of the moon, and even the compiler seems to be making its own best guess based on undefined behavior.

The value of int is typically well defined, but once you start stacking up these well defined bits, subjectivity quickly takes over.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#49

Post by mathisfun123 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 8:07 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #48

mathisfun123 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're just wasting everyone else's fucking time you sure you're not the one wasting people's time by demanding they convince you of something you don't have any need to be convinced of - like did you know that just answering a question at face value is a completely plausible option?

>face value Funny term to use as it has a very particular meaning of something that cannot/should not be interpreted because it is well defined. This is a common flaw of the programmer type, especially when they go about writing code and documentation. That is, that what they are writing can only be interpreted in one way. Then they toss it out into the real world and it turns out every human has a different interpre…

> define: face value

> 3. Figurative Usage ("Taking at face value")When used in everyday language as a phrase, "taking something at face value" means accepting a statement, situation, or person exactly as they appear or are presented, without digging deeper for hidden meanings, motives, or questioning their authenticity

...

not sure what version of the english language you're using but in colloquial english "taking something at face value" means having a good faith interpretation.

Re: Don't answer the first question

#50

Post by mathisfun123 » Mon, May 18, 2026, 8:51 PM UTC

hamdingers wrote: post #36

mathisfun123 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if they don't, in fact, have more experience than me? Edit: this is why tech people are insufferable socially. In any other walk of life assuming you know more than someone is a manifestly obvious faux pas.

Then solve the problem yourself? Why are you asking someone who knows less than you? We need a word for the inverse of being XY'd for when someone asks an XY question but is too proud to accept there's a better alternative to X

> Then solve the problem yourself? Why are you asking someone who knows less than you?

you seem to completely misunderstand XY: it's not someone giving you the right solution to your problem which you aren't capable of arriving at yourself. it's someone telling you the problem you're having isn't the one you should be solving. it happens very frequently that some arrogant person is 100% certain X problem isn't possible, or isn't really happening, or isn't really the source of issues and they try to gaslight you into believing you've made a mistake in your reasoning and you should solve problem Y instead. you know... kind of like how you're doing right now...