Timeline for Help us make "Off-Topic" close reasons clearer to the OP
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2014 at 5:03 | comment | added | Bodey Baker | Purely ad-hoc does provide a useful mechanism for seeing people who probably shouldn't be allowed to moderate. | |
| Jun 11, 2013 at 19:59 | vote | accept | Jaydles | ||
| Mar 3, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | jscs | On the other hand, we'll almost certainly need to keep the generic reason. If this field were extremely short (30-50 characters) and under the generic reason as just "Subject of this question", I could see it maybe being helpful to the asker. | |
| Mar 3, 2013 at 19:42 | comment | added | jscs | I admit that "i dont like ur quetsion" is extreme; in fact, it's not even a good example of what I'm concerned about. I posted a bit too quickly, so let me try again. Even a well-intentioned closer may be under a misapprehension: "questions about git aren't programming problems". I think having an explicit list of close reasons is important to keep the process unbiased. | |
| Mar 3, 2013 at 8:56 | comment | added | slhck | @BenBrocka Yeah, of course the option can be removed if it doesn't appear to be constructive, however I'd still give it a spin. Remind you that with these sub-reasons there's no "off topic" without a sub-reason anymore, so you can't just vote to close saying, for example, the question's a shopping recommendation, and then post a comment, "Actually I voted to close as shopping recommendation, but instead I meant it's …". I'd find that confusing. | |
| Mar 3, 2013 at 1:07 | comment | added | Zelda | I don't like the idea of these being purely ad-hoc. We have comments for that; IMO (as in my answer) close reasons should still be pre-defined, though I think each site should have custom ones, editable by either moderators or the community (though to prevent abuse/mistakes, funneling it through moderators seems sensible to me) | |
| Mar 2, 2013 at 18:13 | comment | added | slhck | But of course, if a free-text form doesn't work out (and if there are really enough >3k users who don't understand how this is supposed to work, which would be sad, but imaginable), it can always be made mod-only. | |
| Mar 2, 2013 at 18:12 | comment | added | slhck | @JoshCaswell I agree that putting in a custom reason like that of course isn't constructive. The question is whether forcing the users to pick from a fixed list doesn't create more confusion though, as it simply doesn't work for all cases. The question is: Have edits ever been rejected with a custom reason of "I don't like ur edit"? To my knowledge that system worked quite well and allowed for much more fine-grained feedback. | |
| Mar 2, 2013 at 18:07 | comment | added | jscs | I think close-voter-written rationales (the empty text box) are a good recipe for more arguments about closing, not less. It's far too easy for that to become "closing as off topic because i dont like ur question". Perhaps mods could get that field, though, in order to provide more precise guidance. | |
| Mar 2, 2013 at 18:07 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | I don't think free-form close reasons are a good idea. Choosing which one to display gets problematic when users vote for different reasons. It also makes the custom reason appear more official than it actually is, if it appears inside the close reason explanation. | |
| Mar 2, 2013 at 17:39 | history | edited | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 622 characters in body
|
| Mar 2, 2013 at 17:33 | history | answered | slhck | CC BY-SA 3.0 |