It was an honest question, not snark (passive aggressiveness is not my style).
The introduction is kind of hidden on the page, and clarifies the meaning of "model" in this context. Otherwise, GP is correct that "model" is often used to mean a supervised model, and that people generally call it "supervised learning", not "model-based learning".
I'm glad it was an honest question. Editing the comment is an option.
I think the guideline exists because even as an honest question it does not add anything to the comment and at best an answer doesn't change anything and at worst it detracts from meaningful dialog.
One feature of this particular guideline is that it provides an alternative phrasing that is likely to avoid misinterpretation.
>I think the guideline exists because even as an honest question it does not add anything to the comment
I hope you see the irony here considering how much you're derailing this conversation (I'm only responding because I realize your intentions are good). And I'm pretty confident my comment added plenty of value to the discussion - I realize sometimes tone is lost in text, but after my clarification I don't see why you need to harp on this. Anyway, original comment edited.
If I had thought of suggesting editing your comment before posting my second comment, then it might have been different. And in a similar situation in the future I well might. That said, until I thought about it a bit more, it didn't occur to me. Anyway, for me, writing is thinking.
The introduction is kind of hidden on the page, and clarifies the meaning of "model" in this context. Otherwise, GP is correct that "model" is often used to mean a supervised model, and that people generally call it "supervised learning", not "model-based learning".