Reading on Meta StackOverflow, the consensus there seems to be that 'bad' (i.e. poorly researched, lazy, duplicate, etc.) questions shouldn't be answered, as this just encourages more questions of the same type (see this answer).
However, I wonder what is, or should be, the norm here. Taking as a case in point, this question ("How to set about constructing Nootropic stack for learning a particular skill") is clearly not what this site is intended for: it's ill informed, it's about self-help, and probably worse, self-experimentation, and it is, for want of a better word, a bad question.
However, I still posted an answer, because:
- there were a number of misconceptions shown in the question which I believed should be addressed; and
- This information might be beneficial for others (although admittadly I didn't provide the references I should have).
My question is this: Should such questions be responded to, if doing so could increase the knowledge base available on this site, and be of use to others, or should we cut them a wide berth, so as not to encourage them?