[2026 update] Are there stupid questions here? A staff answer, at length

Are there stupid questions here? A staff answer, at length — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.

Question in the title. Context below, and I have tried to include the things people here always have to ask for.

What I have already read: the relevant maintained document, the two topics it links to, and the tag page. What I could not find is the specific case I am in, which may simply mean it is uncommon.

I am happy to be told this is answered elsewhere if someone can point at where.

Welcome. The orientation materials are pinned at the top of this category and they take about an hour. They answer most of the questions a new member has and they save time in the longer run.

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

Off-topic posts that do not belong here belong in the Lounge instead. You are not in trouble if a moderator moves your post — they are just routing it to the right place so people who want to read it can find it.

Coming back to post #2, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

There is no stupid-questions rule and no penalty for asking badly. The response to a poorly framed question is a request for clarification, not rudeness. That is a deliberately cultivated norm here.

Marked solutions are the site's way of saying that someone asked a good question and someone else gave an answer that actually worked. It is not a competition and it does not appear on your record — it is just how the site learns which topics stay useful six months later.

The moderation log is public. Every staff action is logged with the rule cited and the reasoning stated. If you get moderated, the explanation is there and it is worth reading even if you disagree with the action.

Introducing yourself is fine and requires no question. Post in this subcategory, describe the context that matters for why you are here, and lurk for a bit before posting technical questions. That order works well.

post #8 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Your introduction is well framed. You have given enough context that people can actually answer. That is rarer than it sounds and it matters more than it sounds.

On the reading order question specifically: start with the how-to-ask materials in this category, then read the one to three subcategories where your main questions live. The rest will be discoverable by tag once you understand the structure.

Coming back to post #9, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Trust levels accumulate over time and they give you access to small things like the ability to edit your own posts without a timestamp. They are not a status symbol and they do not make you more right. Someone at trust level zero with a good question gets better answers than someone at trust level four with a bad one.

Picking up post #9: that is the part I would want checked first.

The FAQ link in the sidebar is maintained and worth ten hours of forum browsing. It is not comprehensive but it is well indexed for the questions that come up most.

Nothing here requires expertise. The experienced members here got that way by posting questions, not by knowing the answer before they showed up. If you know something useful, post it. If you do not, ask.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.