What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Meta sites, with the exception of this very site, have "not a real question" as closing reason.

screenshot taken from meta.drupal.stackexchange.com

May this closing reason be removed from the other meta sites too?

Meta sites accept feature requests, and bug reports, both of them are not technically questions. The other closing reasons should be enough, on meta sites.

share|improve this question
    
Do you think that, instead of removing it, clarifying what "not a real question" on Meta means would help? –  Makoto May 7 '12 at 15:46
    
I would remove Not constructive from meta as well... –  user173320 May 7 '12 at 15:52
1  
Why, @gdoron? It's been used quite a bit, and quite usefully, IMO. –  Michael Petrotta May 7 '12 at 15:54
1  
@Makoto Meta Stack Overflow doesn't have that closing reason, and it doesn't seem there is any need of having it. –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 15:54
    
@gdoron the Not Constructive close reason is very important for meta (closing useless rants ect) thought the descriptive text could use some fixing –  Ben Brocka May 7 '12 at 15:57
    
@BenBrocka. It's being used without good reason. take a look on this. {IMO} –  user173320 May 7 '12 at 15:58
    
@gdoron When I asked, "If that closing reason [not a real question] is removed, what other closing reason should be used? Should 'not constructive' be used?" Nick Craver replied, "Absolutely, if someone brings a rant here on meta with no real problem, no solution and is doing something completely not constructive, that's a valid close reason." See my previous feature request. (The link is for 10k users on Meta Stack Overflow.) –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 15:59
2  
@kiamlaluno I dunno, there have been times when I missed having "not a real question" (or, better yet "noise or pointless") here on MSO. I disagree with this request. –  Anna Lear May 7 '12 at 16:35
1  
There is a reason they added it –  Ephraim May 7 '12 at 16:42
    
Why do you want it removed? Do you propose something else to replace it? (I don't really see the point of this feature request.) –  Mat May 7 '12 at 16:44
    
@Ephraim The "not a real question," and "noise or pointless" closing reasons have been removed from Meta Stack Overflow. –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 16:47
    
@Mat See my comment to gdoron. –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 16:48
1  
I'm sorry I don't get your point. So not constructive could be used. If you're not proposing something to replace NARQ usefully, why do you need it gone? –  Mat May 7 '12 at 16:53
    
@Mat Because "not a real question" is barely used, on a meta sites, differently from the other closing reasons. On this meta site, that closing reason has been removed, and it doesn't seem "not real questions" are still open. –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 17:00
    
@Ephraim If you look at the answer given from Jeff Atwood for the question you linked, it says, "replaced with the more general [description of the not constructive reason]." The edit has been done 3 hours ago, but the meaning is clear: on MSO, the "not a real question" has been replaced with "not constructive." –  kiamlaluno May 7 '12 at 20:58

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

I very much disagree with this request. In fact, I'd like to see NARQ back here on Meta.SO.

Meta sites accept feature requests, and bug reports, both of them are not technically questions. The other closing reasons should be enough, on meta sites.

The NARQ close reason obviously does not apply to bug reports and feature requests. And there's little risk of it getting used inappropriately, since only trusted users have the power to close questions anyway. And if there were a case where a bug report or feature request was inappropriately closed by some 3k+ rep users as NARQ, a moderator could easily step in and fix the problem.

Instead, the NARQ close reason applies to "questions" where the following description holds true (which is, not so coincidentally, the description for the NARQ close reason):

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.

Please don't try and tell me you haven't seen Meta questions where that adequately describes the reason behind a closure.

Apparently the argument is that any question we would have previously closed as NARQ we can now close as "not constructive". I disagree with that. The "not constructive" close reason does not imply that the question is unclear, incomplete, or rhetorical. It implies that it is "not constructive". These are two separate problems, both of which are unfortunately quite common Meta sites.

Because "not a real question" is barely used, on a meta sites, differently from the other closing reasons.

I disagree. I either use it relatively often on the SE 2.0 Meta sites, or frequently wish I could use it here.

On this meta site, that closing reason has been removed, and it doesn't seem "not real questions" are still open.

That's because other close reasons are getting abused to close these questions; in particular, the "not constructive" reason. It's also because these questions get closed and deleted extremely quickly here on Meta.SO. That's not necessarily the case on SE 2.0 Meta sites. Just because you aren't seeing evidence of these questions does not mean that they do not exist.

share|improve this answer
    
I would also like to see it back. Plenty of questions posted here are in the form of questions, but are not real questions (for example, this one from the past hour). If something isn't actually a question, I have a real hard time believing 5 meta members who have earned the ability to VtC here are going to mistake it for a question. –  Aaron Bertrand Jul 22 '12 at 19:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .