user89: It appears that many of the visitors to Buddhism.SE are either non-Buddhist, or fairly new to the religion. Understandable that people are curious, and want to ask about it. My opinion is for Buddhism.SE to be inviting to visitors, we have to be welcoming of questions of beginner nature, such as about God(s), heaven and hell, and so on.
However, there is also a benefit in having most questions high quality, not a minority to the "how does Buddhism work" type of questions. So this question got me thinking about if Buddhism.SE should be "strategically" seeded with entry level questions?
Somewhat in line with Questions with easy online answers, but as people don't search/find on Google, they could perhaps benefit from the same/similar answer here.
Should Buddhism.SE be seeded with entry level questions?

user16: I see the arguments already given, but at the same time I can't help thinking, that even beginner's question can be answered and dealt with in an expert way. Of course, there is a slight (or not so slight) danger of getting pestered in the long run. But having on a site, along with expert knowledge spent on expert questions, also waterproof and good answers to beginners questions might also be a mark of quality.
There is so much crap out there in the net, especially, I guess, on religious topics, so very often the following quote holds true:

A person with a watch knows the time. A person with two watches is never quite sure.

So if there are good answers here on such questions, they will be found on google by people who are having basic insecurities about Buddhism. And seeing that this site is trustworthy, since it is full of expert knowledge, it just might reduce the number of watches.

user32: Simply put, the best way for a SE site to answer questions from beginners is for beginners to ask them. However, SE sites make for great Q&A sites, not for great reference sites. 
Shog9 said when Hinduism.SE's private beta was extended:

Original content; more than just a Hinduism primer
There are a lot of questions here that are... Pretty basic. "Could be answered by a Wikipedia entry" basic. Questions that require no expertise aren't a particularly good way to attract experts. You gotta expect a few of these, but when every other question can be answered by a Google search...
...And worse yet, an awful lot of them are answered that way: by quoting external sources. A site that just regurgitates things that others have written isn't much good; answers like that just clog up search results without adding anything. It's important to cite your sources, but just as important to demonstrate knowledge of both the question being answered and the topic itself - this is where we can actually make the Internet a better place, demonstrating how to use this knowledge to answer specific questions. Answers that are primarily copied from Wikipedia or other forums / blogs - even when properly attributed - are just speed-bumps, annoyances to folks searching for good information.
I'd really like to see more questions that require some serious research and experience to answer... I know some of you have been studying these topics for years, and are well past the beginner stages of your education - what sort of problems do you encounter?

I do not mind beginners asking beginner questions. I do not mind experienced people asking beginner questions because they have a gap in their training or education.   
Those are earnest questions that embody what a SE site does well. In the meantime, we want to attract experts–experts asking expert questions is one of the big things that predicts the success of a SE site, in part because success is defined that way–so it is best to focus on questions you are or have struggled with or you see someone struggling with (though asking them to come ask the question themselves is best). 

user18: Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.
I don't think we need to have answers to every question about Buddhism; we need answers to expert questions that one can't find by simply googling. I think we should keep pointing out when questions are LMGTFY-worthy, and encourage only questions that are truly looking for expert answers.

89: <p>It appears that many of the visitors to Buddhism.SE are either non-Buddhist, or fairly new to the religion. Understandable that people are curious, and want to ask about it. My opinion is for Buddhism.SE to be inviting to visitors, we have to be welcoming of questions of beginner nature, such as about God(s), heaven and hell, and so on.</p>

<p>However, there is also a benefit in having most questions high quality, not a minority to the <em>"how does Buddhism work"</em> type of questions. So <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/what-are-the-three-marks-of-existence">this question</a> got me thinking about if Buddhism.SE should be "strategically" seeded with entry level questions?</p>

<p>Somewhat in line with <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/46/questions-with-easy-online-answers">Questions with easy online answers</a>, but as people don't search/find on Google, they could perhaps benefit from the same/similar answer here.</p>

<p>Should Buddhism.SE be seeded with entry level questions?</p>
 16: <p>I see the arguments already given, but at the same time I can't help thinking, that even beginner's question can be answered and dealt with in an expert way. Of course, there is a slight (or not so slight) danger of getting pestered in the long run. But having on a site, along with expert knowledge spent on expert questions, also waterproof and good answers to beginners questions might also be a mark of quality.</p>

<p>There is so much crap out there in the net, especially, I guess, on religious topics, so very often the following quote holds true:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A person with a watch knows the time. A person with two watches is never quite sure.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So if there are good answers here on such questions, they will be found on google by people who are having basic insecurities about Buddhism. And seeing that this site is trustworthy, since it is full of expert knowledge, it just might reduce the number of watches.</p>
 32: <p>Simply put, the best way for a SE site to answer questions from beginners is for beginners to ask them. However, SE sites make for great Q&amp;A sites, not for great reference sites. </p>

<p>Shog9 <a href="https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92/private-beta-extended-please-focus-on-quality">said when Hinduism.SE's private beta was extended</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Original content; more than just a Hinduism primer</p>
  
  <p>There are a lot of questions here that are... Pretty basic. "Could be answered by a Wikipedia entry" basic. Questions that require no expertise aren't a particularly good way to attract experts. You gotta expect a <em>few</em> of these, but when every other question can be answered by a Google search...</p>
  
  <p>...And worse yet, an awful lot of them are answered that way: by quoting external sources. A site that just regurgitates things that others have written isn't much good; answers like that just clog up search results without adding anything. It's important to <a href="https://hinduism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1/can-we-enforce-quotations-of-scripture-references">cite your sources</a>, but just as important to demonstrate knowledge of both the question being answered and the topic itself - this is where we can actually make the Internet a better place, demonstrating how to <em>use</em> this knowledge to answer specific questions. Answers that are primarily copied from Wikipedia or other forums / blogs - <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/help/referencing">even when properly attributed</a> - are just speed-bumps, annoyances to folks searching for good information.</p>
  
  <p>I'd really like to see more questions that require some serious research and experience to answer... I know some of you have been studying these topics for years, and are well past the beginner stages of your education - what sort of problems do <em>you</em> encounter?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I do not mind beginners asking beginner questions. I do not mind experienced people asking beginner questions because they have a gap in their training or education.   </p>

<p>Those are earnest questions that embody what a SE site does well. In the meantime, we want to attract experts–experts asking expert questions is one of the big things that predicts the success of a SE site, in part because success is defined that way–so it is best to focus on questions you are or have struggled with or you see someone struggling with (though asking them to come ask the question themselves is best). </p>
 18: <p>Personally, I find seeded questions irksome; it's generally easy to see that the asker isn't really looking for an answer, so there is no sense of accomplishment in answering. It feels more like a chore, like editing Wikipedia or something.</p>

<p>I don't think we need to have answers to every question about Buddhism; we need answers to expert questions that one can't find by simply googling. I think we should keep pointing out when questions are LMGTFY-worthy, and encourage only questions that are truly looking for expert answers.</p>
