I can't see the discussion and BW is not my area of expertise, but very frequently such discussions are reported because they look like "lazy" (i.e. author didn't bother searching in Google) and generic questions. If you've already read about something but still have a specific questions then it is beneficial to put that in the discussion.
E.g. instead of just asking "what's the difference between A and B" ask "I've read about A and B here and here (add links so that people could see where you got the information), but I'm still having trouble understanding <such and such>".
Also frequently I see the questions that maybe were not asked on SCN in the same exact form, but they are in fact not different from many similar questions that were already answered. It shouldn't be difficult for an SAP professional to expand their search to different terms.
SCN members can't read minds, we can only see what is written in the discussion. Unfortunately, it's not unusual to see the discussions that appear like RTFM questions, but when you direct the OP to Google they get all offended and claim that they have already performed extensive analysis. How are we supposed to know that and why their question does not show it then?
There are SCN blogs that offer some perspective on rejection: this one and this one, among others.
You must be a registered user to add a comment. If you've already registered, sign in. Otherwise, register and sign in.