Warn new users when they ask a question after a previous question is closed, downvoted, or deleted

Question

Another "miséricorde": Can you please review my ban?

Consider this comment (emphasis added):

I think its okay, please dont take any efforts for me. I personally do not feel the system helps ask good questions. I dont know why asking for a software in this case is bad. Basically I needed a command that would give me this data. There is no other way I could have asked the question. I could have changed the question just for the sake of changing. I feel I am better off elsewhere. Thanks for your very very prompt responses. Regards. Bye. – user1744649

We just lost another user due to inadequate guidance on what questions are allowed. The assumption that every post-banned user is aware of the rules and quality standards by the time they are banned has been proven incorrect.

Given that hand-holding every new user is infeasible, we need a better way to make sure that users can understand how to ask good questions and what types of questions are allowed.

I suggest that we warn newcomers, in a clear but positive tone, when one of their questions has been closed, downvoted (to a score of -2 or lower), or deleted, so that they don't repeat the same mistake. This is probably best done the next time the user asks a question, and should appear as an "interstitial" page prior to reaching the actual Ask Question form. The page should not appear to users:

• with at least 50 (or perhaps 75 or 100) reputation
• that have asked a good question since the last downvoted/closed/deleted question
• that have fixed a bad question and had it reopened/undeleted/upvoted.

The content of the page should be adapted based on the specific problem with the previous question. I would imagine something similar to the following (example for a question closed as off topic on Super User):

Before you ask another question...

One or more of your previous questions have been closed as off topic. The scope of on-topic questions is defined in the FAQ, as follows:

What kind of questions can I ask here?

Super User is for computer enthusiasts and power users. If you have a question about …

• computer hardware,
• computer software, or
• personal and home computer networking

and it is not about …

• programming and software development,
• video games or consoles,
• websites or web services like Facebook, Twitter, and WordPress,
• electronic devices, media players, cell phones or smart phones, except insofar as they interface with your computer,
• issues specific to corporate IT support and networks,
• asking for a shopping or product recommendation,

… then you’re in the right place to ask your question!

Please make sure that the question you are about to ask is on topic as described above. If you need help determining whether your question can be asked on this site, you can ask for advice on Meta Super User or chat. You may also want to edit your previous question to address any problems associated with it.

To ensure a high standard of content quality and prevent disruption to the community, users who repeatedly post low-quality questions may be blocked from posting further questions.

Continue

The question EULA doesn't address this issue as it is shown only to users with 10 reputation or less (rather than up to 50 and possibly higher) and does not address the specific problem with previous low-quality questions. The point of this feature request is to provide a easily understood targeted message that actually teaches the user about what happened with the previous question he or she asked. The EULA is generic and may not have conveyed the intended message clearly if the user still asked a low-quality or off-topic question. For reference, this question-banned user currently has 143 reputation and the proposed message would probably have been shown after the first closed or deleted question.

I know this can be a complex feature to implement, since it needs to be adaptive, but this should help eliminate confusion on what the rules are and minimize the incidence of good-faith users getting post-banned.

Answer 1

As of May 26^th 2014, we are showing a warning to folks who are about to post a question or an answer when they already have a track record of ... suboptimal

questions:

or answers:

The specific criteria for these aren't public largely for the same reasons the quality block criteria aren't public, but let's just say that folks who are nearing hitting a block will be getting a heads up and some instructions first.

Answer 2

From my own observances there are two types of banned user.

1. The overeager deleter who happens to hit the ban somewhere between 100 and 600 rep, for deleting too many questions.
2. The person who simply hasn't bothered reading anything about what might be appropriate for the site they're on.

The user you're talking only has 143 reputation because they won a bounty. Reading slhck's answer they definitely fall into the second category:

Of the six questions you've asked until now

• four have been closed
• three are now deleted
• none have received a single upvote

However plaintive or eloquent the meta post afterwards there is still one inescapable fact: the user doesn't care about the community enough to bother to read and understand anything. They have had the FAQ and about page linked prominently at the top of every single page they've visited. Before asking their first question they will have been instructed to read the FAQ. On each closed question they were instructed to read the FAQ.

This person simply doesn't care about the community which they are expecting answers from at all. Will forcing them to read the FAQ once more really help in this specific case?

I don't think this is a bad idea; I just think we're talking about about minorities of minorities of minorities who this might help. The chances are that the reason they're in danger of getting banned is that they don't understand what's happening.

Answer 3

As I said in a comment, I don't think that adding another warning message will help much. Most of the posts I've seen where someone is asking/complaining about being banned include a claim that "I've read the FAQ and my question is fine (and/or) I've read the information on bans and none of it applies to me." And most of them, like the example linked in the OP, either didn't read the existing information or didn't understand it.

One thing that might be worth considering would be rewording the very first section of the answer to "What can I do when getting “Sorry, we are no longer accepting questions/answers from this account”?" That section is written with the topic sentence at the end, so maybe it would be clearer if that were put right at the top:

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because you have posted too many poorly-received questions or answers.

Answer 4

I'm not going to vote on your OP because I agree with you in principle, but not in practice.

While I would absolutely love to help new users improve the relevance of their questions and set them on a path towards good question-asking (and I know most others would want this too), I'm not sure it's reasonable to any extent beyond what we have already done.

Remember that these are users' questions - they're likely to be following them rather closely. They will already have seen the close reasons, and it it's being downvoted, it's very likely somebody has commented on the post. However, I think the problem you're trying to address is better addressed in a less circuitous way, and here's why:

For users' first few questions, they are redirected here instead of the normal ask page. While this page could probably be reworded, as it's a little obfuscating, the points there are clear.

Remember, whenever a user complains about a question close or ban, they are frustrated. When someone is upset at me, of course I have to evaluate whether or not my behavior is upsetting them, but I also must bear in mind that frustration is a feedback cycle. A frustrated and irate user is not going to be thinking clearly about what they need to improve, and will become more frustrated when we tell them they're doing it wrong.

That's why there are so many of those "relieve me from my ban" posts - most users who come here are too upset to learn anything about what they're doing wrong. Most people I know will refuse to admit they are wrong when they are upset. There are outliers, though, and I appreciate them when I seem them.

To address this particular post specifically, users who cause these problems are unlikely to read through this message in any significant detail. They've already been given plenty of reading material, which they have ignored. I'm not sure this would change much.

Answer 5

We should stop throwing more text at users, especially until we do something akin to split testing or real data work to show text does anything. I don't think it does anything other than make us feel morally smug that we gave user on the ice more things to click through (but hey they brought this on themselves), then feel we've tried everything when they make the same mistakes, so therefore they are hopeless.

If you want to try to something more radical that stands a chance of being effective give them an easy, hand-picked review audit corresponding to their close reason. If they fail, 24 hour ban.