replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive oneI've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete GregoryKete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

Migration of MSO links to MSE links
Source Link

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive oneI've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete GregoryKete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

added 768 characters in body
Source Link

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

Source Link
Loading