Improve Not a Real Question close reason message

Question

When closing a question as Not a Real Question (NARQ) it looks as follows:

Closing questions is often badly received by the OP, which isn't that surprising really. Let's try to analyze how they could possibly (mis)interpret it.

At least help me, what am I doing wrong?

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9651325/which-programming-language-for-ai#comment12255170_9651325
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9634818/android-show-a-pointer-when-user-touch-or-drag-on-android-device#comment12230007_9634818

Attacked/Insulted

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9649674/downloading-websites-source-code-and-saving-it-to-string#comment12252283_9649674
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9638189/request-timed-out-asp-net-very-strange#comment12236343_9638189

Don't know they can still edit

• Removing html tags in from a string in android
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9634692/how-to-accessing-object-property-in-javascript#comment12229532_9634692

Injustice

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9638189/request-timed-out-asp-net-very-strange#comment12236343_9638189
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9633511/tracing-key-strokes-made-outside-of-the-application#comment12243457_9633511

Ignorant

• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9637237/the-different-types-of-fonts-for-uifont#comment12240266_9637237
• https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9634112/how-to-use-rockplayer-in-android#comment12228419_9634112

Everybody who has spent a considerable amount of time on the SE network knows a question closed as NARQ can be reopened after the OP improves it. Let's see which indications somebody unfamiliar with the SE network has.

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. See the FAQ.

This starts out negative, confronting the user with a list of terrible things they could have done wrong. At this point the user might already be losing interest to continue reading, let alone read the FAQ. Only at the very end, there is any indication of hope. After users read the FAQ they are presented with the following:

Closed questions cannot be answered, but are eligible for improvement (and eventual re-opening) through editing, voting, and commenting. See How to Ask for guidance on editing your question to improve it.

I believe a minor change of the close reason text could do wonders. Start out positive, then state what went wrong.

Unfortunately in its current form it's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is either ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical. Unless it is edited it cannot be reasonably answered. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

Sure, it is a bit longer. But from my own experience stating it like that goes a long way in setting the mood prior to discussing on how to improve the question.

Answer 1

We did tweak the language of the close reasons again about 6-8 weeks ago to try to be more helpful - more specifically, we tried to call attention to the fact that editing the question is encouraged and could help get the question reopened. The close reasons now look like this:

exact duplicate

This question covers exactly the same content as earlier questions on this topic; its answers may be merged with another identical question.

off topic

Questions on Stack Overflow are expected to relate to programming or software development within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

not constructive

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.

not a real question

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.

too localized

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.

Answer 2

The next deploy will add "See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it" to the close text.

Answer 3

It seems like the real problem you're trying to solve is that people don't know that a closed question can be re-opened. In my experience, I suppose I'd have to agree that this is a problem.

But I think the fix is a lot simpler than what you propose. We don't need to double the length of the message or invert the order of its sentences. Yes, it starts out negative; that's because it is in response to a negative condition. For clarity, you always lead with the problem(s). The solutions come second.

If the person isn't interested in reading on (as you suggest), then they're probably beyond help. They're not going to take the time to read the FAQ, improve their question, and get it re-opened. And I'm not even sure that I want to invest time in making it easier and less painful for these people. You have to at least try to help yourself.

The only issue I have with it is that "See the FAQ" sounds like "RTFM". I suppose that's kind of the point, but we could make that a little bit nicer while simultaneously conveying the message that a closed question can be edited and re-opened once improved. All we'd have to do is add the following ending:

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

Your formulations, including words like "unfortunately" and "unless", make it sound like we're apologizing for closing a badly written or inappropriate question. I oppose that. It's not our fault that their question was closed, it's their fault for asking a bad question. Neither the close voters nor the SE network has anything to apologize for, and the message shouldn't be written in such a way that it sounds regretful.

Answer 4

Negative instructions are paralyzing. Somebody new to SE will hear 'NO'. Period. Some will leave and never come back.

The alternative wording of Steven Jeuris is pretty good IMO.

Unfortunately (for you)

Unless you make a change (you're question will stay closed.)

That's not apologizing, it's politely guiding. Let's assume that most of the new SE users are interested in asking great questions.

Here's an alternative:

Currently, this question is either ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical. It can be reopened after editing. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

Edit: Let me propose something 'novel'. Instead of arguing against or in favor, let's do an experiment. The current wording has been around for some time now. Let's put Steven's wording up for trial during one month, and my wording for another month an compare statistics.

Answer 5

When I read the Close message aloud, the juxtaposition of that long sentence - "This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form" with "SEETHEFAQ" sounds almost like this mean bully that started yelling at me a whole laundry list of insults, then finished it with "And F&*# YOU!" ..

It's more rough than needed(Even the vague "not a real question" is rough, but nevermind that). And I know we're not the Miss Manners or nursery-rhyme club, but the closing message certainly can be... more diplomatic and clear(and without being politically correct or hand-holding). I do like Cody's suggestion in another answer, to explain the purpose of seeing our faq.

One other note: Having a question "Closed" hurts regardless. It really can be the last-straw if someone is desperately trying to seek help. We may be tough and strong, but let's remember we are human too(and we're a bit too male-dominated btw ). It seems logical to explain the benefit of seeing our FAQ. Especially since the rejected-user just spent five minutes debating whether his question was shut because it was vague or ambiguous.