2 Improved answer
source | link

I've already posted this as a comment to AndrewC's answer, but I think I want to give it a little more visibility. Vote away and tell me what you think:

How aboutpropose replacing "off-topic" with the simple word "unfit", or maybe "unfit for this site"?phrase

"not a good fit for this site"

(oh yeah, rock that heading, baby)

I think it would nicely tie together the various site-specific reasons why a question should be closed:

In my understanding of the word "unfit"words "good fit", it also has the benefit of being free of judgemental overtones, unlike "inadmissible" for instance. AndI had previously proposed "unfit for this site" or simply "unfit", but as @random noted in a comment, this too can be seen as disapproving (even though we would be saying the question is unfit, which to my mind cannot be taken as meaning the question is incapable or incompetent, let alone the person who asks)

I think the idea of a question's fitness should be fairly easy to understand for everyone, whatever their current level of experience with the site.

Let's see how that would look in the flagging pop-over :

Flagging > This question doesn't belong here because it is
  . duplicate of...
  . not a good fit for this site because...
  . unclear what you're asking
  . too broad
  . primarily opinion-based

Or in the phrases :

[closed] as not a good fit for this site

[put on hold] as not a good fit for this site

Another reason I like the word "fit" is the inherent notion of a gradient. A question can be "an easy fit", "not very fit", "almost fit", "not fit at all"... words like "off-topic" or "inadmissible" sound like much more binary, yes/no, with-us-or-against-us kind of deals.

You can easily understand why a question is "put on hold as not a good fit". It could become a good fit, but the asker has to work on it, that's why it was "put on hold".

Arguments against other proposals

Two other proposals seem to have the favour of consideration by the moderators here :

"doesn't meet community guidelines" : I would argue that this is not helping people like me, the <3K flaggers. One still has to learn the meaning of the phrase, and what's behind it in the flagging pop-up, to get comfortable with it. When I flag a post because there's no SSCCE, I want a simple label or phrase to tell me (or remind me) where I should click. "Community guidelines" looks a little too serious or severe. I just want to say, hey, look, mods, something is a little off here. I think "not a good fit for this site" really captures what I'm thinking about the post I'm trying to flag. "Meeting community guidelines" has no gradient either : can a question "almost meet the community guidelines" or "barely meet the community guidelines"? Well... maybe, but you really have to strain the definition of the verb "to meet". The notion of fitness is more useful.

"out of scope" : the word scope is a little too close to the word "topic", so I think it has the same problems as "off-topic". I think when when a question lacks an SSCCE, it's much more natural to think "it doesn't fit in" than "it's out of scope". Again, scope is too binary, it's "what we want or don't want to see". "Fitness" carries the hope that a question can be made better.

I've already posted this as a comment to AndrewC's answer, but I think I want to give it a little more visibility. Vote away and tell me what you think:

How about replacing "off-topic" with the simple word "unfit", or maybe "unfit for this site"? I think it would nicely tie together the various site-specific reasons why a question should be closed:

In my understanding of the word "unfit", it also has the benefit of being free of judgemental overtones, unlike "inadmissible" for instance. And I think the idea of a question's fitness should be fairly easy to understand for everyone, whatever their current level of experience with the site.

I propose replacing "off-topic" with the phrase

"not a good fit for this site"

(oh yeah, rock that heading, baby)

I think it would nicely tie together the various site-specific reasons why a question should be closed:

In my understanding of the words "good fit", it also has the benefit of being free of judgemental overtones, unlike "inadmissible" for instance. I had previously proposed "unfit for this site" or simply "unfit", but as @random noted in a comment, this too can be seen as disapproving (even though we would be saying the question is unfit, which to my mind cannot be taken as meaning the question is incapable or incompetent, let alone the person who asks)

I think the idea of a question's fitness should be fairly easy to understand for everyone, whatever their current level of experience with the site.

Let's see how that would look in the flagging pop-over :

Flagging > This question doesn't belong here because it is
  . duplicate of...
  . not a good fit for this site because...
  . unclear what you're asking
  . too broad
  . primarily opinion-based

Or in the phrases :

[closed] as not a good fit for this site

[put on hold] as not a good fit for this site

Another reason I like the word "fit" is the inherent notion of a gradient. A question can be "an easy fit", "not very fit", "almost fit", "not fit at all"... words like "off-topic" or "inadmissible" sound like much more binary, yes/no, with-us-or-against-us kind of deals.

You can easily understand why a question is "put on hold as not a good fit". It could become a good fit, but the asker has to work on it, that's why it was "put on hold".

Arguments against other proposals

Two other proposals seem to have the favour of consideration by the moderators here :

"doesn't meet community guidelines" : I would argue that this is not helping people like me, the <3K flaggers. One still has to learn the meaning of the phrase, and what's behind it in the flagging pop-up, to get comfortable with it. When I flag a post because there's no SSCCE, I want a simple label or phrase to tell me (or remind me) where I should click. "Community guidelines" looks a little too serious or severe. I just want to say, hey, look, mods, something is a little off here. I think "not a good fit for this site" really captures what I'm thinking about the post I'm trying to flag. "Meeting community guidelines" has no gradient either : can a question "almost meet the community guidelines" or "barely meet the community guidelines"? Well... maybe, but you really have to strain the definition of the verb "to meet". The notion of fitness is more useful.

"out of scope" : the word scope is a little too close to the word "topic", so I think it has the same problems as "off-topic". I think when when a question lacks an SSCCE, it's much more natural to think "it doesn't fit in" than "it's out of scope". Again, scope is too binary, it's "what we want or don't want to see". "Fitness" carries the hope that a question can be made better.

1
source | link

I've already posted this as a comment to AndrewC's answer, but I think I want to give it a little more visibility. Vote away and tell me what you think:

How about replacing "off-topic" with the simple word "unfit", or maybe "unfit for this site"? I think it would nicely tie together the various site-specific reasons why a question should be closed:

  1. its subject matter
  2. its vagueness or lack of information
  3. or anything else!

In my understanding of the word "unfit", it also has the benefit of being free of judgemental overtones, unlike "inadmissible" for instance. And I think the idea of a question's fitness should be fairly easy to understand for everyone, whatever their current level of experience with the site.

Personally, as a <3K user, I can't seem to get used to the phrase "off-topic" when I'm flagging posts. I may find my way more easily after a couple of flags, but it seems like every morning on my first flag of the day, I have to retrace my steps... I really hope we can find something better.