Return to Answer

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second wording improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second wording improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second wording improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second wording improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second verbiage improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.

My recommendation is that if you run into a question where the body is just "See the title" or similar, revise the question body to rephrase the presented question. Like casperOne, I don't believe that the style alone is enough to warrant closure - if the underlying question is close-worthy, or if the lack of detail is enough to make it unanswerable, that's closeworthy. But if it's a valid question in its brevity, then closing isn't very wise to do.

There are two advantages to rephrasing the question in the body. The first is that this makes it look better - just pointing at the title looks bad. The second is that having a second wording improves the searchability of the question. Remember how many problems we have with duplicates because people just phrased things differently? By using two ways to phrase the same problem (when possible), it creates two avenues of access within a single question. As our goal is to help people to find these questions in addition to having the answers, improving searchability is a great way to handle questions which otherwise are just the title.

To take a specific point out of your question, if the title is unwieldy and long to allow for this, another course of action is to condense the title and bring the complexity into the question body. This isn't always feasible, and often requires talking with the author to set it up properly, but in the end, the meat of the information should be in the question body, not in the title.