On this site, what makes a good question?
A good question
Don't make it about you or your personal circumstances. We can't give legal advice, and your question will often just be better if you take the time to think about the more general legal issue you want to learn about.
Write your actual question as a single sentence. Sometimes you'll need a bit of setup, but that setup usually shouldn't be more than a short paragraph. You might think it's hard to phrase your question simply, but even extremely complex Supreme Court cases can be phrased in single sentences.1
Your question should be consistent with the question title. Answering one should roughly answer the other. The title can be a simplification, a rough approximation, but it shouldn't be totally different.
Avoid making assertions about how the world is or what the law is. The more you try to tell us how things really are, the less you're asking a question.
A hypothetical is sometimes useful for seeing how your question would be answered in a particular, imagined case. For example: "Assume these facts about the world are true: [a list of facts]. Then, under law X, can/must Y happen?" Hypotheticals should only assume facts not law. A hypothetical might be the entire question. Or a hypothetical might be a specialization of a more general question that you asked.
If you edit your question, try not to just add material. Instead, replace material. We don't need to see a growing history of "Edit #1, Edit #2, etc." If you've re-thought your question, re-write your question. Avoid edits that make an answer to your original question invalid.
- Regardless of any of the above, questions don't have to follow a formula. Don't get scared off. If you read the above, and roughly understand the guidance, we'll do our best to understand your question, assume good faith, and help you improve it if necessary.
This question, while not explicitly following the above guidance, is a good question. Paragraph 1 is the main question. It has a bit of setup. Sure, it says some things about the world, but they are uncontroversial, and can be accepted as true with no consequence or even treated as a hypothetical. The question itself is a single sentence. It matches the title. Paragraph 2 is more like a specialization, another hypothetical, or a rephrasing. It is superfluous, but only barely.
This question is okay. The setup is a link to another site. That can be improved by summarizing whatever was needed from there in a sentence here. The question is a single sentence that matches the title. It could be improved by asking whether a certain consequence follows or what consequence would follow from a certain set of facts. Right now, it just asks whether cake design "falls under" US copyright law, which we've assumed is asking whether cake designs are given copyright protection.
This is one of our highest voted questions. It asks two questions. This isn't ideal, but they are both short and so closely related that second can be seen as a direct follow-up. The second paragraph is unnecessary and I think the question would be improved by removing it.
1. For example, look at question presented Respondent's brief in Nelson v. Colorado: "Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to an automatic, unqualified monetary judgment against the State for amounts paid pursuant to a conviction that is later invalidated?