Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

If a question is answered (not self-answered) and upvoted, isn't it understandable (at least to some)?
If a few people don't understand the question, doesn't mean a majority didn't understand it.
If a majority didn't understand the question, there can be more close-votes.

So, shouldn't the required close-votes-count be increased ( under not a real question ) for a question if it is answered by even one person?

Example:How to remove a row from JTable?

share|improve this question
Even if this has any merit, why only that close reason and not others? – BoltClock's a Unicorn Jan 30 '13 at 15:32
The NARQ status of a question doesn't necessarily mean that the question isn't understood. In fact, it's often clearly understood, but simply a bad question (or not a question at all). – Bart Jan 30 '13 at 15:33
@BoltClock'saUnicorn a question may be answered if it is a duplicate, too localised, off-topic or not constructive(to start a discussion) – pradyunsg Jan 30 '13 at 15:37
@Bart If that is the case why would someone answer it? – pradyunsg Jan 30 '13 at 15:38
See Shog9's answer here. Additionally, I'd say 4/5 of the answers to things I would vote as NARQ are terribly bad answers. – Andrew Barber Jan 30 '13 at 15:40
@paddila Why would they answer it? To get up votes. – Andrew Barber Jan 30 '13 at 15:41
@AndrewBarber If the question has a terrible answer,Then the answer would be down voted at least once, then the 'exception'(extra close votes) would not be granted.. – pradyunsg Jan 30 '13 at 15:43
@paddila No, that is not at all necessarily the case. Lots of people never down vote when they also vote to close. I don't always do both, myself. It's perfectly valid for a question to be closed without ever being down voted (itself or its answers). The two should not be linked. – Andrew Barber Jan 30 '13 at 15:45
paddila, people do not often downvote helpful answers, even answers to bad questions. You are making a lot of leaps in logic here. – Anthony Pegram Jan 30 '13 at 15:46
@AnthonyPegram Yes I agree, but then the question is a question. – pradyunsg Jan 30 '13 at 15:48
@paddila No, that is not at all necessarily the case! Many people often provide a helpful answer to something that is not a real question. Whether anything has been voted on is not at all relevant. – Andrew Barber Jan 30 '13 at 15:53
That's another leap. But you have recourse. If you think a question has been wrongly closed, you can always flag it and state your case. Clean the question up, as suggested in Shog9's answer, if you think that would help. – Anthony Pegram Jan 30 '13 at 15:53
@AnthonyPegram instead of flagging you can also go to this chat on meta – Some Helpful Commenter Jan 30 '13 at 15:59
@AnthonyPegram Ok..Got it,I see why you think I was leaping, I forgot to mention what if both the question and answer have been upvoted? – pradyunsg Jan 30 '13 at 16:01
Sometimes I'll vote to close things as NARQ because of the answers. One of the most insidious breeds of NARQ is the question that yields multiple answers to different readings of the question which have to be cleaned up once people find out what the actual question is. We close questions so we don't have to waste everyone's time. – Ben Brocka Jan 30 '13 at 16:25
up vote 9 down vote accepted

No, it should be edited - either by the answerer (in order to make the question they answered manifest) or by the asker (upon realizing that the answer does not reflect the question they intended to ask).

If a question is confusing / vague / unclear, then posting an answer to what it might be asking is a valid strategy - you might guess right - but there still needs to be that follow-up step to clarify the question at some point, lest you end up just misleading future visitors.

Edit: If you were motivated to ask by this question, then I have some specific advice:

  • The question is quite unclear - what's being asked for in the title is rather different from what's asked for in the body (and your answer answers neither of them, but rather provides a hint for what seems to be a tangential requirement).

  • The question seems rather broad. He's setting out to build a tool for visualizing molecules, but it's not clear how far he's progressed toward this goal. At very least, he's asking:

    • How he can "work with" models in Python (this could be a rather broad question all on its own, depending on what he means by "work with")
    • How he can accept input from the operator (presumably this means command such as "draw this model")
    • How he can view the resulting rendering (either internally, or in a web browser)
  • While your answer provides a stepping-stone toward an answer to the very last sub-bullet above, I would have a hard time calling it a conclusive answer to the question - even if the question were edited down to just that question.

In short, you should have probably advised him to break up his question into multiple pieces, including in each enough detail that folks can provide full, useful answers. If you wanted to answer just the part about opening a web browser, you could've edited the question down to just that... However, this may not have pleased the asker, and... You'd still have wanted to flesh out your answer a bit.

share|improve this answer

That example question shouldn't have been closed as not a real question, since it asks a simple question, and it's obvious that it's understandable, the tags giving it the context it needs. While the good answers point to that fact, in general there are a lot of questions that have good answers in spite of the question.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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