Why do so many people neglect to cite reliable references when they answer question?

Actually, you've got a fair point. I know that I've spend hours looking for a particular CNN report that is constantly cited by someone and have never found it. So I've gone through my previous couple of days worth of answers and left links where possible. But sometimes I use personal experience to illustrate my answers, sometimes, as other have stated, using common sense and there's no links for those. Sometimes tho, it's a question that may have been asked before and, although you know the answer because you looked it up before, you just can't find or remember where you got your answer from.

1. Laziness. I'm here to kill time/procrastinate, really.

2. Many answers are common sense (where do I get protein?)

3. People don't ask for them. If someone asks, I'll go through the trouble of citing it. But when I did that before, someone didn't want to believe me, even though I gave direct FDA codification.

4. The references they give may be biased, e.g. China Study vs the rawfoodsos on whether or not being vegetarian is healthy. I guess that goes for reliability, which you want.

5. No references, just my experience. For example, I'll always state that lentils are the king of protein, because I always felt like crap when I don't have lentils. I may not be a RD, but my mom saw one. She received terrible advice (eat more cheese, less beans, get more protein!). I did that in college, and felt like crap. When she decided to stick to our traditional Indian food, she felt good and lost weight. I have very little confidence in just any ol' dietician. I think in some cases, anecdotal evidence is really superior to what someone learns in school, especially when that person has little experience in dealing with our population.

I usually answer questions that can't have sources. For example, Trying to prove that something is a health hazard. I believe that everything within reason is healthy until proven otherwise. GMO crops have never been proven dangerous, for example, except for some studies that I don't agree with due to the methods in which they were conducting. For example, I saw a study that claimed that GMO corn caused stomach inflammation in pigs, even though the control group had similar inflammation. If I can't find a source showing that something is bad, then that in itself is a source.

Probably because it doesn't matter. People seem to believe what they want to believe and generally, the more factual your answer, the more people thumbs it down because it doesn't play in to what they want to believe...likely leaving the questioner to think the good answer is the crap answer because so many people disagreed with it. Furthermore, there is a site that can be referenced for almost any opinion out there.

As another answer said...Yahoo Opinions would be a better name for the site.

To be honest David that is the nature of the internet! I sometimes write from my own experience, in which case I don't back it up, it is my opinion and I make that clear. Other times when I'm making a point I will back it up with a link to make my argument. It doesn't change the fact that I can pretty much argue what I want, I could probably find something to back it up somewhere. For example I can find pages which state that cholesterol is both good and bad for you http://naturalrevolution.org/new-study-cholesterol... http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/conditions/high... I can find pages which state that veganism is good for you: http://www.timetogoveggie.com/ttgv/health.html and pages which state that its not : http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/food-n... http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Ar...

So in answer to your question, as far as nutrition is concerned, most answers are bad answers. Adding bad links doesn't help the answer be less bad. The person asking the question should always do their own research and find out the truth.

For me it's a matter of not wanting to waste my own time. When I make certain claims I know they are right because I have read up extensively on the subject over many years. But do I remember exactly which publication said what bit of information? Not always. If people don't believe something I state - for example the fact that vegans have lower rates of most cancers than meat eaters - they can easily go and Google the words, "vegan cancer rates" and find the information themselves. Why should I have to do it for them? And to paraphrase what one person here has already said: more often than not it's information that one would have thought was common knowledge.

I never give sources no matter what I'm answering. Sometimes things are just general knowledge for someone. Like I graduated early so I know a lot about high school and college requirements and programs. I just know those things, I don't have a source to cite.

Maybe these people just know their recipes by heart or something.

Many questions need only a common sense answer. If someone is specifically asking about calories for example, I do give a reference. I have expertise in many areas. Do you want my certifications every time I answer a question? Get real.

Depending on the subject, you will find "resources" and "evidence" on both sides of an issue so in my opinion, there is little "truth" in the world, there is mostly our own truth.

If you want better answers, ask better questions. Most questions on this site demonstrate a total lack of effort.