I recently wrote this Q&A that was meant to be a monolithic point of help for (nearly) all questions regarding.
But for a "serious" question this was of course too broad. If anybody else would have put this question I'd flat out have voted to close it as "too broad".
Now this action was inspired by similar actions(well this samples requested gave a bounty and actually asked for an answer whereas I just asked and answered) on other networks sites and I'm hereby asking you, how we should handle this kind of think. I propose the following approaches:
- Simply allow broad questions if good monolithic answers are presented (maybe not so good as it's too complex for beginners to understand)
- Post these broad questions and present a list of related questions as answer.
This would mean the big answer would be spread over a few (dedicated) questions and these questions would be referenced.
This would also allow to reference to the exact sub-problem needed on concrete situations.
And it would be possible to link to the master-question to get user's some navigation, this would basically result in a "multi-page hierachical wiki" on answering every possible variation of the master question.
IMO this would be the best approach as all the knowledge is available with at max 2 pages in between.
- Don't do such things at all and always respond to concrete situations. (IMO a bad choice as good points like keyfiles and smartcard based authentication will get lost using this)