This is a site about lifehacks.
Currently, it sounds like the definition of a lifehack is that it's an unconventional solution to a problem.
Does that mean that we should be downvoting answers that are giving the conventional solution to a problem?
For example: Someone asks how to peel an orange. Someone answers saying to use an orange peeler. That isn't really a lifehack, that's just the common method of peeling an orange. Since it's not a lifehack it should be downvoted, no?
We each have a different background, often times a different culture as well. What's conventional for you very well may not be conventional for me. Simply because that's the case does not give reason to downvote. As such, it's impossible to determine what culture (and therefore convention) a person is from, thus we cannot vote based on convention. It's impossible to determine if an answer is conventional across all cultures.
Quoting from another answer of mine,
having multiple, various cultures can actually benefit us because what's conventional for one culture may not even be thought of by another. For some problems, different cultures provide vastly different solutions. As a community we can benefit from these variances by weighing the pros and cons of each approach.
However, our definition of lifehacks (implemented in our new scope) defines lifehacks to be "creative, meaning they use materials that are on hand for uses besides their intended use." As such, while we shouldn't be downvoting answers based on convention, if the answer is not creative (as we define it) then it isn't a lifehack. With that being said, creative lifehack versions of a product made to solve the problem at hand can make for great answers.
EDIT: While I rolled this post back to a previous state, my personal view has changed to one that is more consistent and matches our new scope better than this one.
From my perspective an orange peeler is a foreign concept and in fact I have never seen such an item before I looked it up while I was on this site. Using it is neither common nor conventional. (I use a small kitchen knife for the task)
Corncub holders are something that I have already seen once, but have never used myself. So, its still unconventional to me while it most likely is not to most people visiting this site.
Windshield covers on the other hand are so common and obvious I would never have suggested them because of their widespread use.
otoh I find using knifes to hold stuff very obvious, but as I was the only one with that suggestion it feels like other people see that different.
I fear we can't define "conventional" until we don't know about which culture we are talking.
So for your question: Downvote them as much as you like (I do the same), but don't be surprised if the idea of "conventional" gets disputed if you leave a comment explaining your downvote.
Are we looking for artistic or practical answers?
The “new scope” defines a lifehack as
a technique that can be implemented quickly and is used to make one's physical life more efficient when a more standard approach
This implies that we are looking for practical answers. Therefore, what matters about an answer is whether it works and whether it is convenient. The following are valid reasons to downvote:
But “it isn't creative enough” is not a valid reason to downvote. If the best way to solve a problem is the obvious way, so be it.
Excluding the obvious way would be a recipe for mediocrity. Sometimes the best way to skin a cat is a cat-skinner¹. We should encourage voting for good ways to solve the problem, without arbitrarily excluding ways for being too square. Otherwise, this site would turn into a collection of second-best answers only.
This goes in line with encouraging (while not requiring) questions to specify what was tried. If the “obvious” solution is unsuitable, the question should mention why. If that's not the case, then maybe the obvious solution isn't so obvious, or maybe there just is no other reasonable way to solve this problem, and either way, the obvious answer is a perfectly valid answer.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who'll read Lifehacks.SE threads are not participants — they're visitors who found the site in a web search. These people don't care about the site name. They aren't looking for “lifehacks” — they're looking for a solution to their problem. If the question describes a problem which has a “conventional” answer, it's vital that this answer be given as much consideration as “unconventional” answers: otherwise we would be polluting search results with irrelevant answers, and thus making the Internet a worse place.
¹ Note to cat lovers lacking a sense of humor: this example is obviously fictional.
No, we should be downvoting the question, and probably closing it. If a problem can be solved acceptably with a conventional method, the question should quite clearly state why that method is inadequate, and if an answer simply repeats a solution described and rejected in the question, it should be downvoted as any other non-helpful answer.
There are two questions that we should ask ourselves when evaluating answers:
Our definition of lifehacks (implemented in our new scope) defines lifehacks to be "creative, meaning they use materials that are on hand for uses besides their intended use." Therefore, if the answer is not creative (as we define it) then it isn't a lifehack. As such, they do not answer the question being asked because questions are implicitly seeking lifehack answers. In all cases that I can come up with, the conventional solution is by definition not creative.
With that being said, creative lifehack versions of a conventional solution can make for great answers!
