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.

I'm very active in the Backbone tag stream and I'm constantly seeing questions with a lot of lines of code exposes to try to add information about the issue to solve.

This is very good but for the fact that a lot of times the exposed code contains most lines related to personal business logic than related to the issue logic itself.

I think people should work a step forward and re-write their code to create a very simplified version of it very issue-focused, removing any line that is not relevant for the question and finding the minimal version of the code that reproduces the issue.

People are used to just copy their code and paste into the question without any abstraction work.

  • Creating more abstract, personal business logic agnostic questions will produce more reusable answers and, at the same time, avoiding duplication.
  • Creating more issue-focused questions will simplify the work of the people answering.

I don't think this close reason fits into the too localized option due the question actually "is likely to help any future visitors" the problem is that has to be redefined to focus in the issue in a more abstract way.

Updated

I don't think this close reason fits into the not a real question option because it is not ambiguous due is too concrete, is not vague due is too much descriptive, is not incomplete due there is too much information (even non-relevant one), is not overly broad due is should be even more abstract, is not rhetorical because is not any kind of philosophical speech... Finally it is a real question it is just the person making it should describe it in a more issue-focused way, removing any non-relevant information.

Updated

Maybe could be just enough not adding a new close reason but adding a new it is not a real question definition, like for example: "or you have to work in expose your question more issue-focused removing any non-relevant information that doesn't offer more than noise"

share|improve this question
1  
Would that not simply fall under "overly broad" of the "not a real question" description? –  Bart Aug 14 '12 at 12:27
1  
"Not a real question" is your friend - This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. –  Pëkka Aug 14 '12 at 12:27
    
@Bart, Pekka Well, it is not ambiguous due is too concrete, is not vague due is too much descriptive, is not incomplete due there is too much information (even non-relevant one), is not overly broad due is should be even more abstract, is not rhetorical because is not any kind of philosophical speech... Finally it is a real question it is just the person making it should describe it in a more issue-focused way, removing any non-relevant information. –  fguillen Aug 14 '12 at 12:36
    
If it should be more abstract, it's overly broad, isn't it? You want to OP to narrow it down. Make it smaller... –  Bart Aug 14 '12 at 12:37
    
@Bart, yes "Make it smaller" is what I want but don't think the expression "overly broad" is fitting in this. I understand overly broad like if for example I ask "how to build a Backbone App?". Anyhow maybe could be just enough not adding a new close reason but adding a new it is not a real question definition, like for example: "or you have to work in expose your question more issue-focused removing any non-relevant information that doesn't offer more than noise" –  fguillen Aug 14 '12 at 12:42
    
@muistooshort maybe you can expose your opinion about this proposition, I'm sure you have reflected about this already. –  fguillen Aug 14 '12 at 12:48
    
My answer to this request for another close reason could fit here too. –  Flexo Aug 14 '12 at 12:51
    
@Flexo, indeed, I think the sub-reasons approach is a better solution to achieve my proposition, check my last update. –  fguillen Aug 14 '12 at 12:55
    
I have no idea what your close reason is supposed to mean. By the way, note that close reasons make sense on all Stack Exchange sites. If you think you've found a close reason that's specific to one tag on one site, think again. –  Gilles Aug 14 '12 at 18:08

1 Answer 1

We don't need more close reasons, or sub-reasons for the close reasons. The existing list of close reasons already creates enough cognitive dissonance; voting to close should be as frictionless as possible.

Having a laundry list of close reasons would have a chilling effect on closing questions. Imagine if you had to pick a specific close reason from the ones described in What Stack Overflow is Not. You'd never close anything; it would be too much trouble.

It would be better if there were a meta post for each close reason, explaining the sub-reasons why a question is closed.

share|improve this answer
    
What would a meta post for each reason achieve? If it is not clear to a new user how the close reason applies to the question, leave a comment that is tailored to the question. –  Gilles Aug 14 '12 at 18:07
    
A meta post provides an authoritative reference. –  Robert Harvey Aug 14 '12 at 18:52

You must log in to answer this question.

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