Reader situation
Broad questions are common in professional communities. They are easy to write and hard to answer. Members aren’t sure what kind of help is wanted, so they reply with general opinions or don’t reply at all.
Central idea
Broad questions make it difficult for others to know what kind of help to offer. Adding context and narrowing the question can lead to more specific perspectives and a clearer conclusion. This fictional discussion shows the difference.
Worked example
Fictional example
The people and details are invented to illustrate an approach.
Fictional broad question
Leo, a marketing manager, posts in a Circle for marketing leaders:
How should we be using AI in marketing?
Missing context
After a day, Leo has three replies. One lists popular tools. One says it depends on the company. One shares an article. None of them helps him.
The host, Dana, asks Leo a few questions:
- What kind of company is it, and how big is the marketing team?
- What problem are you trying to solve?
- What have you already tried?
- Are there any constraints, such as budget or company policy?
Dana asks in a reply on the thread, so other members can see how the question develops. Leo explains that he leads a team of four at a mid-sized accounting firm. The team spends most of its time writing client newsletters and proposals. The firm’s policy doesn’t allow client information to be entered into external tools.
Revised prompt
Leo rewrites the question
I lead a four-person marketing team at a mid-sized accounting firm. We spend most of our time drafting client newsletters and proposals. Our policy doesn’t allow client data in external tools. Has anyone in a professional services firm used AI to speed up drafting without using client information? What worked, and what didn’t?
Sample viewpoints
The revised question draws more specific replies
- A member at a law firm explains that her team uses AI to draft newsletter outlines from public information, then writes the final text themselves.
- A member at a consulting firm says they tried AI for proposals but found the drafts too generic to save much time.
- A third member points out that his firm created an internal review step after an AI draft included an inaccurate claim.
The viewpoints differ, but each one relates directly to Leo’s situation. Members who work outside professional services can also see that the question isn’t aimed at them, so the thread stays focused. One of them still adds a useful note about checking AI output against brand guidelines, framed as a general point rather than direct advice.
Useful conclusion
Leo summarizes what he’s taking away
Thanks, all. It sounds as though outlines and first drafts of general content are the most useful starting point, proposals may be harder, and a review step is essential. We’ll try outlines for the newsletter first and review the results after a month.
Boundaries
- Hosts can help members narrow a question, but the question still belongs to the person who asked it.
- When adding context, leave out confidential details about clients or employers.
- One discussion offers perspectives, not proof. Treat conclusions as a starting point to test.
Reflection questions
- What broad question have you asked recently? What context did it leave out?
- What constraints shape the answers that would actually help you?
- How could you close a discussion so that others can see what you took away?
One practical application
Find a broad question you’ve asked or are about to ask, and rewrite it with context, constraints and a specific request before posting it.
