Can you help high-closure sites do better in guiding users?

Some sites, especially the more-subjective ones, get a lot of questions that don't work out of the gate. On The Workplace, for example, we get questions asking for personal advice ("what should I do?" "should I take that job?" etc). On Worldbuilding we get questions that are way too broad ("what would be the effects of (insert one change here)?"). I've just picked two that I'm pretty familiar with, but I know there are other sites that struggle with this.

Where possible, our communities try to help the askers to improve their questions -- clarify, narrow, adjust for scope, etc. This can be a frustrating experience for all involved, though, especially if there are a lot of comments that stray from their primary purpose. Too many people see "on hold" (and comments saying "I am voting to close because") and think that's the end, despite the messaging in the hold notices and encouraging comments.

In an ideal world we would both intercept the problem earlier and do better at responding to the ones that get through. Maybe question templates or sandboxes help with the former; I'm not really sure what to do with the latter. We don't want to compromise quality, though, so "don't put problematic stuff on hold" isn't the answer.

I know that non-SO sites can't get new features, but maybe there are knobs you can turn on a site-by-site basis that would help us. (Not sure what; that's a vague idea. I'm hoping question templates/wizards aren't just for SO, eventually.) Maybe there are specific changes we should make to our tour, help center, and close reasons to communicate better. Maybe we can use chat better somehow. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from other sites on the network.

Can you help us help users better avoid, or recover from, questions being put on hold, without compromising quality?

Can you help high-closure sites do better in guiding users, without compromising quality?

Some sites, especially the more-subjective ones, get a lot of questions that don't work out of the gate. On The Workplace, for example, we get questions asking for personal advice ("what should I do?" "should I take that job?" etc). On Worldbuilding we get questions that are way too broad ("what would be the effects of (insert one change here)?"). I've just picked two that I'm pretty familiar with, but I know there are other sites that struggle with this.

Where possible, our communities try to help the askers to improve their questions -- clarify, narrow, adjust for scope, etc. This can be a frustrating experience for all involved, though, especially if there are a lot of comments that stray from their primary purpose. Too many people see "on hold" (and comments saying "I am voting to close because") and think that's the end, despite the messaging in the hold notices and encouraging comments.

In an ideal world we would both intercept the problem earlier and do better at responding to the ones that get through. Maybe question templates or sandboxes help with the former; I'm not really sure what to do with the latter. We don't want to compromise quality, though, so "don't put problematic stuff on hold" isn't the answer.

I know that non-SO sites can't get new features, but maybe there are knobs you can turn on a site-by-site basis that would help us. (Not sure what; that's a vague idea. I'm hoping question templates/wizards aren't just for SO, eventually.) Maybe there are specific changes we should make to our tour, help center, and close reasons to communicate better. Maybe we can use chat better somehow. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from other sites on the network.

Can you help us help users better avoid, or recover from, questions being put on hold, without compromising quality?

Can you help high-closure sites do better in guiding users?

Some sites, especially the more-subjective ones, get a lot of questions that don't work out of the gate. On The Workplace, for example, we get questions asking for personal advice ("what should I do?" "should I take that job?" etc). On Worldbuilding we get questions that are way too broad ("what would be the effects of (insert one change here)?"). I've just picked two that I'm pretty familiar with, but I know there are other sites that struggle with this.

Where possible, our communities try to help the askers to improve their questions -- clarify, narrow, adjust for scope, etc. This can be a frustrating experience for all involved, though, especially if there are a lot of comments that stray from their primary purpose. Too many people see "on hold" (and comments saying "I am voting to close because") and think that's the end, despite the messaging in the hold notices and encouraging comments.

In an ideal world we would both intercept the problem earlier and do better at responding to the ones that get through. Maybe question templates or sandboxes help with the former; I'm not really sure what to do with the latter. We don't want to compromise quality, though, so "don't put problematic stuff on hold" isn't the answer.

I know that non-SO sites can't get new features, but maybe there are knobs yo can turn on a site-by-site basis that would help us. (Not sure what; that's a vague idea. I'm hoping question templates aren't just for SO, eventually.) Maybe there are specific changes we should make to our tour, help center, and close reasons to communicate better. Maybe we can use chat better somehow. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from other sites on the network.

Can you help us help users better avoid, or recover from, questions being put on hold, without compromising quality?

Can you help high-closure sites do better in guiding users?

Some sites, especially the more-subjective ones, get a lot of questions that don't work out of the gate. On The Workplace, for example, we get questions asking for personal advice ("what should I do?" "should I take that job?" etc). On Worldbuilding we get questions that are way too broad ("what would be the effects of (insert one change here)?"). I've just picked two that I'm pretty familiar with, but I know there are other sites that struggle with this.

Where possible, our communities try to help the askers to improve their questions -- clarify, narrow, adjust for scope, etc. This can be a frustrating experience for all involved, though, especially if there are a lot of comments that stray from their primary purpose. Too many people see "on hold" (and comments saying "I am voting to close because") and think that's the end, despite the messaging in the hold notices and encouraging comments.

In an ideal world we would both intercept the problem earlier and do better at responding to the ones that get through. Maybe question templates or sandboxes help with the former; I'm not really sure what to do with the latter. We don't want to compromise quality, though, so "don't put problematic stuff on hold" isn't the answer.

I know that non-SO sites can't get new features, but maybe there are knobs you can turn on a site-by-site basis that would help us. (Not sure what; that's a vague idea. I'm hoping question templates/wizards aren't just for SO, eventually.) Maybe there are specific changes we should make to our tour, help center, and close reasons to communicate better. Maybe we can use chat better somehow. Maybe there are lessons to be learned from other sites on the network.

Can you help us help users better avoid, or recover from, questions being put on hold, without compromising quality?