\n\nConsider the question \u003Ca href=\"http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4498/does-torture-work-well-as-an-interrogation-technique\">Does torture work well as an interrogation technique?\u003C/a> on Skeptics. Is this a brilliant question? Is it even an original question? No, it's just a mundane grain of sand question that could have been asked by anyone at any time. \u003Cstrong>What \u003Cem>makes\u003C/em> it remarkable is the incredible answer\u003C/strong> on that question by \u003Ca href=\"http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/386/larian-lequella\">Larian LeQuella\u003C/a> with over 100 upvotes.\n\nSand, meet pearl.\n\nThat's why we're determined to keep question quality high, even at the cost of refusing a little sand. It's true that you can't have Q&A; without \u003Cem>questions\u003C/em>, but having the wrong sorts of questions is far more dangerous. The fastest way to kill any Q&A; site is to flood it with low-quality questions. I think Mark Trapp summed it up best in \u003Ca href=\"http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/91808/about-new-downvote-policy-on-meta/91813#91813\">this meta answer\u003C/a>:\n\n\u003Cblockquote>To put it another way, when I go to a Stack Exchange home page, I see a \u003Cstrong>list of questions\u003C/strong>. If most of those are terrible questions with little to no indication that I'd be wasting my time by reading them, the value proposition of visiting and participating is diminished: I have better things to do.\n\nCompare that to \u003Cem>answers\u003C/em> on a specific question: I've made a conscious choice to look into what I think is an interesting question. I already made the decision that the question is worth my time. If I find the answers to be useless, I have a few different options, as an interested party, to register my displeasure, including writing my own answer. Being able to write your own answer is key: if your answer is good enough, it'll rise above the junk answers and everyone will be better off for it.\n\nThere is no such action for question lists. I can't say \"these questions suck, show me this question I just thought up instead\": that'd be silly. So, it's imperative the question list have a high signal-to-noise ratio, and removing the penalty for those users who do take the time to read a question and later find it to be useless so they can down-vote is conducive to that.\u003C/blockquote>\n\nFundamentally, answers can be filtered in ways that questions cannot. While there is a tension between having \"enough\" questions and a bunch of amazing, highly skilled answerers twiddling their thumbs waiting around for something to do, in the long run we'd much rather err on the side of having \u003Cem>interesting\u003C/em> and \u003Cem>on-topic\u003C/em> questions for these folks to sink their teeth into.\n\nWe feel that the world is awash in questions, but not answers. Answers are the real unit of work in any Q&A; system. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is to \u003Cstrong>maximize the happiness and enjoyment of answerers\u003C/strong>. If this means aggressively downvoting or closing unworthy and uninteresting questions, so be it. Without a community of people willing to \u003Cem>answer\u003C/em> questions, it really doesn't matter if there are questions at all, does it?","html","2011-06-13T12:00:00.000Z",{"current":380},"optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand",[382,390,395],{"_createdAt":383,"_id":384,"_rev":385,"_type":386,"_updatedAt":383,"slug":387,"title":389},"2023-05-23T16:43:21Z","wp-tagcat-community","9HpbCsT2tq0xwozQfkc4ih","blogTag",{"current":388},"community","Community",{"_createdAt":383,"_id":391,"_rev":385,"_type":386,"_updatedAt":383,"slug":392,"title":394},"wp-tagcat-company",{"current":393},"company","Company",{"_createdAt":383,"_id":396,"_rev":385,"_type":386,"_updatedAt":383,"slug":397,"title":399},"wp-tagcat-stackexchange",{"current":398},"stackexchange","Stackexchange","Optimizing For Pearls, Not Sand",[402,408,414,420],{"_id":403,"publishedAt":404,"slug":405,"sponsored":372,"title":407},"e10457b6-a9f6-4aa9-90f2-d9e04eb77b7c","2025-08-27T04:40:00.000Z",{"_type":10,"current":406},"from-punch-cards-to-prompts-a-history-of-how-software-got-better","From punch cards to prompts: a history of how software got better",{"_id":409,"publishedAt":410,"slug":411,"sponsored":12,"title":413},"65472515-0b62-40d1-8b79-a62bdd2f508a","2025-08-25T16:00:00.000Z",{"_type":10,"current":412},"making-continuous-learning-work-at-work","Making continuous learning work at work",{"_id":415,"publishedAt":416,"slug":417,"sponsored":12,"title":419},"1b0bdf8c-5558-4631-80ca-40cb8e54b571","2025-08-21T14:00:25.054Z",{"_type":10,"current":418},"research-roadmap-update-august-2025","Research roadmap update, August 2025",{"_id":421,"publishedAt":422,"slug":423,"sponsored":12,"title":425},"5ff6f77f-c459-4080-b0fa-4091583af1ac","2025-08-20T14:00:00.000Z",{"_type":10,"current":424},"documents-the-architect-s-programming-language","Documents: The architect’s programming language",{"count":427,"lastTimestamp":428},5,"2023-05-25T09:45:54Z",["Reactive",430],{"$sarticleModal":431},false,["Set"],["ShallowReactive",434],{"sanity-nU795YWnT37DYSSG487Pp1GQdQAVkoSQrLAvPwbLeNI":-1,"sanity-comment-wp-post-4296-1756370337925":-1},"/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand"]