We all love LEGO® Answers, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.

The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter. Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.

Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

2 Answers 2


Final Results

Net Score: 6 (Excellent: 7, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 4 (Excellent: 5, Satisfactory: 1, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 3 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 2 (Excellent: 3, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 1)

Net Score: 1 (Excellent: 4, Satisfactory: 4, Needs Improvement: 3)

Net Score: 0 (Excellent: 2, Satisfactory: 7, Needs Improvement: 2)

Net Score: -1 (Excellent: 1, Satisfactory: 6, Needs Improvement: 2)

Net Score: -3 (Excellent: 1, Satisfactory: 5, Needs Improvement: 4)

Net Score: -3 (Excellent: 1, Satisfactory: 2, Needs Improvement: 4)


My first thought is that this survey had a relatively small number of responses, and as such we shouldn't over-emphasise the value of the results. On the other hand, this data certainly provide food for thought, particularly as it is likely to represent the views of the more dedicated users of this site.

I have just a couple of observations:

Net Score: -3

In my view (and with the benefit of hindsight) I think that this question should have been put on hold until it was clarified. I am still not quite sure what it is asking, and link-rot would make the question completely unintelligible. (I mean no disrespect to the questioner: it can be hard to ask good questions, and I doubt that I could have done better in this case).

Net Score: -3

To be honest, I struggle to see why this is any worse than

Net Score: 2

In general, part identification seems like a perfect fit for this site. That said, it would be nice if the titles of the questions were more descriptive so we can distinguish them more easily as the site gets bigger. For example "Identification of head with nauseated expression".

But still, why did the first of these questions score so much worse than the second?

  • 1
    While I agree it's a low number of responses, it's quite a lot more than we've had for the last 3 or 4 evaluations (Apr 2014: 4, Jan 2013: 4, Oct 2013: 6) ;) Commented Oct 30, 2014 at 16:00
  • 1
    In terms of the specific questions you're commenting on: "Connection" - agree this is particularly poorly crafted question, however it has got a fairly good response, but both Q and A could use some additional images detailing the issue. Commented Oct 30, 2014 at 16:02
  • 1
    Why is "Whose head" worse than "Need help" - The second one explained how they found the part in question rather than just supplying the answer, "teach a person to fish" and all that. Obviously those are my opinions and others may well be available ;) Commented Oct 30, 2014 at 16:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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