First of all, I strongly disagree with you. These questions are perfectly fine. Nevertheless I understand what your concern is. But it's build on a false premise. You compare TGO with completely different communities like "Biology" and so on.
The Wrong Premise
Let me start off with an example: StackOverflow. It shares its scope with:
- Code Review
- Super User
- Computer Science
- Web Apps
- Software Engineering
- Game Development
- Android Enthusiasts
Basically a question in scope of StackOverflow is always also in scope of another network. So, what's the difference?
StackOverflow is there to ask quick'n'dirty. You'll get no scientifically accurate formatted answer, maybe even without citation. You'll just get a quick common sense answer.
This is of course different on networks like "Software Engineering" or "Computer Science". You'll get scientifically accurate answers with proper citation.
What is the difference between a function decorated with @staticmethod
and one decorated with @classmethod?
In a standard algorithms course we are taught that quicksort is
O(nlogn)O(nlogn) on average and O(n2)O(n2) in the worst case. At the
same time, other sorting algorithms are studied which are
O(nlogn)O(nlogn) in the worst case (like mergesort and heapsort), and
even linear time in the best case (like bubblesort) but with some
additional needs of memory.
After a quick glance at some more running times it is natural to say
that quicksort should not be as efficient as others.
Also, consider that students learn in basic programming courses that
recursion is not really good in general because it could use too much
memory, etc. Therefore (and even though this is not a real argument),
this gives the idea that quicksort might not be really good because it
is a recursive algorithm.
Why, then, does quicksort outperform other sorting algorithms in
practice? Does it have to do with the structure of real-world data?
Does it have to do with the way memory works in computers? I know that
some memories are way faster than others, but I don't know if that's
the real reason for this counter-intuitive performance (when compared
to theoretical estimates).
Update 1: a canonical answer is saying that the constants involved in
the O(nlogn)O(nlogn) of the average case are smaller than the
constants involved in other O(nlogn)O(nlogn) algorithms. However, I
have yet to see a proper justification of this, with precise
calculations instead of intuitive ideas only.
In any case, it seems like the real difference occurs, as some answers
suggest, at memory level, where implementations take advantage of the
internal structure of computers, using, for example, that cache memory
is faster than RAM. The discussion is already interesting, but I'd
still like to see more detail with respect to memory-management, since
it appears that the answer has to do with it.
Update 2: There are several web pages offering a comparison of sorting
algorithms, some fancier than others (most notably
sorting-algorithms.com). Other than presenting a nice visual aid, this
approach does not answer my question.
These two questions (yeah, cherry-picked :)) reflect perfectly what I mean. You need to add lot more context when posting on "Computer Science", since they don't just apply common sense. It's a scientific topic and therefore everything has to be as accurate and defined as possible.
StackOverflow not so much. You ask a question and people just answer for the most common case.
We are Stackoverflow
You often compare us to networks like "Biology" or "Earth Science". This is completely wrong! These are like "Software Engineering" or "Computer Science" and we are the StackOverflow to these.
If I ask here for a strange foam on a lake, everyone knows what I mean even though I didn't accurately define it. You just think: "Ah yes, this typical foam I've seen on a lot of lakes. (...)".
On "Biology" you wouldn't do this (even though you might know what phenomenon is asked for). You would ask where exactly it was, which water it was on, the weather and so on. You need this information to exactly identify the corpus delicti. You don't just plainly use the most common sense answer which might fit in 90 % of the real life examples.
Yeah, I would get the accurate chemical and scientific definition of this particular foam I experienced. But that's not what I - quick'n'dirty - want. I want an answer like: "This foam is created by the dissolving organic material in the sea.". Be aware, I don't know whether this is true and of course the answer also has to be more extensive, but I think you got the concept.
Basically I want an answer a hiking buddy would give me while actually experiencing the phenomenon with me. He wouldn't talk about the chemical composition of it or something (in most cases at least ;P). He just explains basically where this foam originates from.
And just like StackOverflow, nearly every other question on TGO is on-topic somewhere else.
Check out some of mine:
TGO or Law?
Why is it prohibited to sleep in a tent?
Pets, Sport, Biology or TGO?
Why do horses need to wear shoes?
TGO or Electircal Engineering?
Why aren't there any electric stoves that can be used for cooking where you can't build a fire?
Christianity or TGO?
Is it offensive to "just hike" on a pilgrim's path?
The truth is more or less always: all of them. The difference is only the answer I suspect and how "quick'n'dirty" my question should be.
The electric stove question attracted an answer which would fit perfectly to Electrical Engineering but that was not what I've expected (big kudos to the author anyway! Many thanks for it.). What I've expected was something like: "You can't carry enough batteries to do that mate. This site states you would've to bring around 10 kg of them in your backpack to cook a simple soup." Add some link and quote and everything is fine - quick'n'dirty. A common sense answer. This would not be suitable for Electrical Engineering however!
Have some Fun
To finally bring this to an end, I want to ask a question. Why do you always think we have a problem in scope? Do you have any rational negative experience regarding this topic on TGO?
Instead of constantly thinking about the scope, a few (or a lot) people here just have fun asking question and sharing or reading others experiences. It makes me smile when I read Charlie's questions which I would never have thought of or Sue having the time of her life explaining how to carry a snapping turtle :) This makes me happy and threads like these just angry to be honest.
I'm out to ask a few more questions. (/◕ヮ◕)/
P.S.: And I have to admit that I should rephrase the foam question. It actually may be misconceived as a question for accurate scientific definition.