One of the metrics that is tracked is 'Answers per Question' and it's one of the ones where we are simply 'Ok' currently (2.5 being the 'Good' level, we're at 2.4)
The problem I see is that given our current rules, extensive speculation is not encouraged (frankly, the amount of speculation I frequently do is likely borderline). This leads to questions with a single, valid answer being preferred.
This is GOOD. Real questions have answers, and this is not a discussion forum (if someone could make those links, that'd be great).
My question comes about because, well, these metrics and guidelines came from stackoverflow initially, where there are MANY valid answers to most questions. There's usually a different technique or language that can allow many different valid answers.
The same isn't true as often for SF&F - questions that allow for multiple correct and valid answers are often subjective or argumentative.
What do you think? Is this a valid metric for this site?
Notes: 1. I'm not suggesting this shouldn't be tracked or used in evaluating the site. 2. I know this is far from our worst metric - questions per day and visits per day are more problematic. 3. I'm asking this mostly as a way to guage what everyone else thinks this site SHOULD be moving towards, and to get some discussion of it going.