I don't know if it is expected that each answers examines all 10 questions... That sounds like a lot of work, and I would be afraid of making it more of an overview than a detailed analysis. If that was the expectation though, I can delete this answer and let someone more courageous look at all the questions.
I have looked at the two that interested me most when reading the list:
Can emacs close open LaTeX tags automatically?
and Instructions on how to work with Evil Mode .
Has the question been asked on Stack Overflow?
Apparently, the LaTeX one has never been asked on stackoverflow. I also searched on tex.sx (there are 400 questions tagged emacs there, for 1000 questions tagged emacs and mentioning LaTeX on stackoverflow), and there, a couple questions do mention the trick, but they don't directly answer that question.
The answer to this question is very stackoverflow-style: a short description of the appropriate key-bindings, depending on the mode you use, without much explanation. On the other hand, this question does not call for explanations, so the answer is complete in my opinion. This question could probably have been asked on stackoverflow and recieved a similar answer.
evil question has a sister on stackoverflow: evil-mode best practice.
It is not exactly the same question, but it would appear to call for the same answers.
The question on this site has only one answer, with introductory style. No code snippet, and instead explanations about what is evil and how it integrates with emacs. It links to a configuration example should a reader be interested, but the primary content is the explanation.
The question on stackoverflow has a lot of answers, each giving some configuration to either integrate evil into emacs or get rid of the conflicting emacs bindings. Most answers contain little to no explanation to accompany the snippet. The question is asked by a vim user coming to emacs, is he expected to be able to read emacs-lisp fluently?
What could be fixed about the posts on this site?
In my opinion, this site could benefit from more questions and answers like the second one: questions asking for explanations as much as code. Answering these questions properly takes more time, which means that, asked on a high-traffic site like stackoverflow, they may remain answered longer than necessary.
I couldn't help but notice that the second question and answers had been left unvoted, maybe it means that this kind of questions is bound to remain unpopular here. I surely hope not.
I have read many times that there are two conflicting communities here: guys coming from stackoverflow, used to quickly answer specific questions to solve a specific problem, and guys coming from lower-traffic sites (tex.sx, math.sx, prog.sx...) who like answers to be as explanatory as possible, even if it means that the answer will take longer to write.
Both approaches are compatible, because most questions belong to one or the other category: people with a problem to solve want it solved fast, curious people asking more general questions will prefer to understand what they read.
Specific problem-solving questions are the main flow of questions: they are many, they are easy to ask, they bring traffic and experts. And they could be asked on stackoverflow if this site didn't exist. But in my opinion, the real added value of this site is in its more down-to-earth questions, which are answered in english instead of elisp.
So there are three suggestions I would make to further improve our site:
- for askers, don't hesitate to ask more questions which are not "I have this problem, please give me an ad-hoc solution" (as long as they are on-topic of course)
- for answerers, try to recognize it when the question asks for explanations rather than (or together with) a mere solution; answer/edit answers accordingly
- for readers, don't be afraid of reading 30 lines of text before voting