The problem I have is I tend to go to the opposite extreme. In anticipation of any question that someone may raise about the issue I'm asking about, I tend to give a lot of background (most of it probably irrelevant) and other details. No one wants to have to read through my whole life story, just to get to the meat of my query an answer it.
There's a middle ground where you describe what steps you've already taken, or things you've tried, after you've described the problem at hand (with examples or links if possible).
At least then you're already providing enough info about what you've done so far that you can get a better quality response, or even a response advising to do something totally different.
Most of my posts are a little long-winded as a result, but I'm laying down the breadcrumb trail for someone who might be able to help but see things differently.
Just put the meat of your query at the top and the potentially unnecessary background information below it. Then whoever answers you can skip the background if it's really unnecessary.
This isn't "the opposite extreme", this is a helpful process by which you can share context with the person you're asking help from.
We usually work on challenging problems. It's unreasonable to expect to easily share relevant context when getting help from someone.
I send _extremely_ detailed notes to coworkers all the time. I usually _take_ detailed notes as I work, so it's fairly easy to "package" the note for someone else's consumption.
At least for me (as someone who's more often answering the questions at my company), this varies quite a bit. Certainly sometimes there's a deep technical problem or an issue requiring genuinely tricky troubleshooting, but often it's a new hire who is still getting up to speed and didn't realize that there's some command that they need to run that will solve all of their problems. In a case like that, I worry about an environment where they feel afraid to ask a question unless they've already fought with the problem for a long time, and where they feel obligated to post an extensive write-up of the steps they've already tried. I would call that an "opposite extreme" since they're significantly less productive than they would be if they had been more willing to reach out for help early on. That's my main concern with the article: it has a tone of scolding people for the way that they ask questions, and I worry that it would cause people to be afraid to ask questions even when it would be best for them to do so.
I think the ideal approach is a balance: some initial detail on the problem, but with an understanding that deeper details can come in the follow-up (which might be over chat or over a call or some other medium).
I think the background can be helpful though. I will often gather it into a gist or something like that and link to it. Then people who are pitching in can realize they need that detail and head to it without having to make an additional exchange with you, or ignore it if it proves superfluous.
