This question has been on the rise recently, and for a good reason—it's asking about a lot of cool and uncommon glassware. What I don't know is how it was never closed as too broad.

As I see it, it's eight perfectly good identify-this-glassware posts combined into one. Additionally, users have taken to giving one answer for each glassware, which is logical (what if you agree with one of the proposed identifications but not another?), but doesn't fit our format (you can only accept one answer, even if the rest are right). Naturally our format lends to breaking apart this mega-question into smaller ones.

That is why I am moving to close this broad, albeit cool question.

  • $\begingroup$ Well, I'm with you. I already got there when hell had already broken loose, and I saw no one trying to fix it, so I didn't bother. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Feb 20 '17 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ I should've checked here before commenting in the post itself. While I understand the format-breakage concern, it is clearly a useful summary of some common and not-so-common labware items. $\endgroup$ – Todd Minehardt Feb 20 '17 at 21:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ToddMinehardt yeah I suppose it may be fine to just leave it as long as we don't make a habit of it. $\endgroup$ – ringo Feb 20 '17 at 21:26
  • $\begingroup$ Went ahead and rescinded my close vote. You guys can do what you will but I'll let it be. $\endgroup$ – ringo Feb 20 '17 at 21:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I personally don't like the question in its current state. I think breaking it up is the best, or at the very least combining all the answers into one. I'm not very swayed by the idea of letting one "exception" slip through - it creates a precedent and sets us on the path of a slippery slope. If a post asks about 50 different pieces of glassware, is it still OK as long as the glassware involved are relatively interesting? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and it shouldn't be some arbitrary "16 glassware or more = close, but 15 or less = leave open" decision. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Feb 21 '17 at 2:19
  • $\begingroup$ Meh, I still stand by my close vote. If you don't close such questions, there's indeed a possibility of people making a habit of it. $\endgroup$ – M.A.R. Feb 21 '17 at 6:58
  • $\begingroup$ I agree it should be broken up. It is very cumbersome to follow as is. $\endgroup$ – Linear Christmas Feb 21 '17 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ OP here. Since I'm new at this site, I goofed it up a bit. Sorry about that. But, if it's any consolation, all of my questions were answered quickly and helpfully by the community, and for that, I am thankful. Maybe I broke the "usual" format a bit, but it's a success in my eyes; I know more than I did before. $\endgroup$ – Jesuspowder Feb 22 '17 at 1:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jesuspowder no one blames you for it:) Our format is a little different from other sites, so you won't do everything perfectly at first. Definitely keep us posted on any new unknown glassware you find! $\endgroup$ – ringo Feb 22 '17 at 1:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jesuspowder No problem. We should have told you earlier, so it is our fault too. Yes, as far as Q-and-A goes, yours is quite a success. Personally I have more of an issue with the split answers than with the question itself. $\endgroup$ – orthocresol Feb 22 '17 at 13:35

If it’s too broad, it’s too broad. If it’s HNQ I don’t care.

Since we can all agree that it is too broad (it violates the one (related) question per post rule) we can happily drop close votes. I’d rather see good questions in the HNQ list.

As a side note, because there were like eight answers to the eight questions was one of the prime reasons how the post could have risen to HNQ — and if I have a bad day, I could consider it rep farming. I considered flagging for mod attention to convert all answers into a single CW answer at one point but held back. Now that I saw the question in the review queue, I definitely dropped a close vote.


I was the idiot that broke the answers up. It just seemed logical to me. If I had it to do all over again, I'll still break the answers up, but I'd
(1) Select "Community Wiki" from the start when I posted the answer. That would hopefully avoid the ire that I was trying to game the system for more reputation points.
(2) I'd also add a thumbnail of each particular item to its answer.

Truthfully the reputation points never crossed my mind. I was just trying to help the guy. The poster from Michigan Tech was a real hook. I spent a few summers in Houghton and donated some mineral specimens to the Seaman Museum on campus.

I was also surprised by all the 'why multiple answers?" comments. I explained why in the second comment on the question.

I added answers for each piece that I could identify so that other could comment piece by piece.

I think reading the answers will show that I was right.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Instead of eight identify-this-glassware posts would it really violate the sanity of the site if the OP posted the text question, then added the various images in separate "answers" with each answer set to the community wiki?

That way all the comments on each piece of equipment would stay together and the OP wouldn't be gaming the site for reputation points.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, I figured because it was you — a user I don’t suspect of wanting to game the system — it was probably just by accident rather than some hidden scheme to take over the world/SE ;) Also, I had a good laugh at your initial comment :D $\endgroup$ – Jan Feb 23 '17 at 22:33

This should be closed, and should be a series of eight multiple questions instead. Optionally, each of the eight questions could contain a "table of contents" linking to the other seven questions in the series.

While the conversion of MaxW's answers to community wiki's helps matters some from the perspective of rep gaming (even though I'm sure this aspect was unintentional), the post is still in direct contradiction to the 'single question per post' principle.

The popularity of the question is meaningless. There's been a lot of discussion in chat (and elsewhere?) about how HNQ's tend not to be ones that we would really want being used to advertise the site, and this one is ultimately no different. It just has an 'Ooh, a whole lot of nifty old stuff!' factor to it. The stuff will still be just as old and nifty broken into separate questions.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .