One of the comments on my question Is the impenetrability of Chapter 14 of Ulysses deliberate, or a consequence of its stylistic pastiches? gently chided me for not showing the research effort I'd put into answering the question myself.
This seems an interesting issue to me. As a StackOverflow user, I'm aware that on that site, showing your own attempts to answer a question is seen as important. And rightly so: there's an overwhelming volume of posts on that site, many of them of very poor quality. Asking for basic research before posting is a sensible way to combat the problem.
It's not something, as far as I'm aware, that we've ever touched on here. Certainly, I've answered a number of questions myself which could just have easily been answered by a quick trip to a search engine.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that there's currently no need to set a bar of personal effort before accepting a question.
We don't have an issue with post volumes. Indeed, more traffic (and more Q's and A's) are good on a beta site.
The somewhat subjective nature of the questions we accept means there is value in someone posting a low-effort question and having someone here collating information from various sources into a single answer.
"Lack of research" is, in itself, a more subjective bar here. For programming questions, there's already a wealth of data on the internet. For literature questions, there's less available, and more of it remains in available only via traditional paper publishing. On my question, for example, the commenter felt I perhaps ought to have consulted a physical schema.
Regardless of my personal feelings, this seems an issue worthy of community discussion so that we can set a policy. Your thoughts?