Can we go back through the un-answered queue and see if we can't get this thing up to par?
When doing this, keep in mind the option to close questions -- one of our issues here is because the traffic is low, it is hard to get to the pre-requisite 5 close votes.
Below are the 10 most recent unanswered questions > 6 hours old as of this writing. It might have been better to look at questions > 24 hours old, since the longer a question goes unanswered, the more likely it is to remain so.1 However, I think a major reason for unanswered questions is low quality questions, and if those don't get an easy answer fairly soon, they might as well be caught and closed ASAP.
Out of the 10, I voted to close 7 and answered 1, leaving only 2 unanswered. That may seem a bit zealous, but I think some of my points here are worth considering -- if we closed more low quality questions, we would improve the general quality of things on the site, and get rid of potential tumbleweed.
This doesn't have to apply to just recent questions, obviously.
I voted to close this because it is too broad. Asking "how to stream data from a computer", or "how to store information in a database" without more specifics shows a complete lack of effort in prior research; while someone could answer the question by regurgitating some basic material easily found in wikipedia, I'm sure that neither of these topics needs yet another internet posting.
"Poorly researched" is the #1 tooltip for downvoting questions, but in terms of getting the point across, closing it is probably more effective -- remember, the OP will automatically get the attention of a moderator if s/he then chooses to edit and improve the question. Downvoters may never bother to return and change their minds even if the question is improved and corrected.
So if you see stuff like this, vote to close.
1 motor spradically stops when going forward
PWM not found in Occidentalis v0.2
I voted to close this question as unclear. While superficially it seems clear, if one considers the steps involved in the problem -- significantly, installation of a web server, which is not even identified -- then it starts to seem more like something very lazy.
Considering I did not make a comment ("We need more information"), that may seem a little unfair. However, my word is not the last word, either, so by the time we get to the 5 close votes, some of that "unfairness" will likely be resolved.
I mention that because I think that if you believe something should be closed, then you should vote to close even if you don't have time to make a comment, or anything in particular to say beyond having chosen a reason. This is significantly different than downvoting with no explanation, esp. since a close can be completely reversed by the community.
Ditto the last question -- I voted to close as "unclear" with no further explanation because the OP was to lazy to even explain what s/he means by "USB input".
Of course, someone could prompt the OP for more info, which is fine; I do that sometimes. However, I do think it encourages an environment whereby people think it is okay to be say as little as possible because "if more information is needed someone can ask for it". Closing a question makes it clear that's not the ideal attitude.
Problem installing Ruby on Rails server on Raspberry Pi
I voted to close this as "unclear" too. The question seems to be centered on the idea that some Ruby component may have a minimum RAM requirement, but rather than researching that or asking the question somewhere more appropriate (e.g., a Ruby forum), the OP simply decides to ask "Has anyone got this working on a Model B?" If we say that is okay, watch the quality of the questions go out the window.
Trouble connecting to wireless network two rooms away
I voted to close this as "too broad" because it is. Notice also the OP has not bothered to reply to comments.
omxplayer rtsp stream over composite output
This one was unanswered, but I added one. It is not a great answer, but one of the points I make is:
If [...] you want a more detailed answer to the question, How do I select the active video output? then ask that as a separate question.
I often think about doing this, and I'm going to start more often. The other option is the question becomes completely localized, because what should have been something general (and more widely useful) gets answered in a Q&A in the comments.
I voted to close this as "unclear". The effort is so low here the OP never actually asks a question. S/he just sort of implies one, kinda. I guess. Maybe.
I voted to close this one as "unclear" although "too broad" would also fit. Adding "updates" to an unanswered question is a poor practice in an S.E. context. Someone needs to rethink but not "out loud", as it were.
1. And 6 hours is pretty brief; I'm sure there are knowledgeable regulars here that check in every few days and go over all the questions since their last visit, as opposed to people like me who just look at the most recent questions regardless of how long it has been. Someone should graph how likely a question is to be answered based on how long it has gone without one.