This question already has an answer here:
- Close reason emphasis is wrong 4 answers
It seems to me that the subject category comprehends not only "understanding of the problem" but also "effort to solve". These both seem like valid reasons to close, but it seems odd to bundle them and even odder to bundle them under a bold-formatted name (i.e. minimum understanding of the problem) that comprehends only one element.
The situation is further muddied by the fact that people seem to also use this category for situations where they feel the poster has not demonstrated sufficient competence in their efforts to solve the problem.
Perhaps the people who wrote this category are thinking of "problem" in the broader sense of "problem and the associated solution space"?
In any event, my question is whether this category (including the bolding) should:
- Remain as is?
- Be reworded/rebolded to more accurately reflect the existing scope?
- Be otherwise refactored?
Update in response to close votes: This question is different than Close reason emphasis is wrong because the latter only addresses the question of emphasis/bolding whereas this question raises questions of wording/semantics and whether to refactor the category (e.g. split out some of the content into other categories).
For example, this question also covers:
- What is meant by "problem" in the phrase "understanding the problem"? Does it refer to just surface level symptoms, what's causing the symptoms, what's required to address the cause? Should we use more specific language?emphasized text
- Which, if any, of these things is really a requirement given the de facto standard or what is acceptable on SO, where one or more of these things is commonly absent in unclosed questions.
- Should demonstrated understanding/competence in the solution space be in a separate category from demonstrated understanding of the symptoms and/or causes of those symptoms (i.e. what I would consider "the problem")?