How do we ensure new users to SE on SE 2.0 sites are not discouraged by question closure and encourage question improvement?

Question

"Don't make me use my brain" edition:

How do we correctly convey the intent behind close voting on SE 2.0 sites and encourage question improvement, with particular focus on natives (i.e. non SO-pedians)? Are there any technical measures we can use (some are highlighted, with relavent links, in the "essay" bit).

"I like reading essays" edition:

So this discussion has been rumbling around a bit all over the chatosphere wherever I go, so I thought it was time for a meta post. I'm a moderator over on an excellent site that you should all visit (and ask sensible questions having read the FAQ, of course. You should also totally visit our meta) as an additional background.

One of the things I've learnt from this experience is that if you close someone's question, then they get quite upset about that, particularly if they're not experienced SO users. It's the SE equivalent of slamming the door in your face.

I don't personally see close voting that way and that is not how I understand its purpose. If I have it right, the purpose of close voting is to "stop" or "hold" bad questions until such a point as they are either improved or eventually deleted (if not). The question is, if that interpretation is right, how do we go about conveying it?

My major concern is that we are possibly doing two things - putting new users off when their questions are closed and not encouraging users to close questions. There also seems to be a problem distinguishing between "this is not a question" and "this is not a question that is suitable for Stack Exchange".

There have been a number of discussions on this topic:

1. On the podcast there was a discussion about dis-disincentivising pointless questions. That focuses on preventing people answering the questions, or rather, editing or closing before answering, the idea being you should be either closing or editing and you shouldn't benefit from answers on a closed question. Opinions vary.

2. This request was put in on wordpress.se's meta for the ability to handle something slightly different - timed close votes, or "improve your question or it will be closed". This is borne out of another issue - users do not like straight out closure, apparently, and would much prefer a warning. It was also borne out of the moderator issue - how do we track/respond to re-open requests.

3. A request for warning was sort-of made on programmers, albeit as part of a wider issue. Specifically,

   Content should no longer be blocked without prior warning.

   blocked? That's the wrong word, I feel, and it's use and the fact closing appears that way is slightly concerning in my opinion.

4. Holding questions has been discussed here and a new user raised their feelings of the close vote system here. In true meta fashion, it was both popular and unpopular.

So, the way I see it there are several possible solutions:

1. Moderators/users always leave comments. I usually do, unless it is absolutely, blatantly obvious why a question is rubbish (e.g. spam). It's still clearly upsetting people though and "force users to leave comments" is never a popular option. There was a question on that recently somewhere too.
2. We change the close messages. They're fine as they are, but how about adding a little bit of extra text, maybe with a link to this (perhaps copying it over to SE.com wth permission and generalising it in case of 410s?). We would also need to, I think, imply some sort of temporary wording in there and a big, obvious link to the edit page preferably with the words "improve" on.
3. We rename "closed" to "temporarily closed".
4. We implement some form of holding queue for these questions.
5. We implement Jack Bauer ("Dammit, you're running out of time!") style closes. See above.
6. Something else? A different level of closed for "rubbish" vs "probably could improve"?
7. A way for the OP to signal to privileged users (3ks?) that they've edited their question and would like it re-opening, with the option to dismiss? Yes, we have a questions with re-open votes in the 10k-tools, but could we make it more prominent (like suggested edits is)?

I'm not sure which is best - I think perhaps a little more user education via an altered close message might be the least contentious and by far the easiest to implement, as well as having the least impact on new user introductions (there's a danger with new question queues that not enough new questions are approved, etc). I also do not have numbers, just various pieces of feedback, to back any of my various assertions. So I am interested in what you think. So, thoughts? Is there something that will allow us to easily allow questions from new users (v important) and encourage them to improve when faced with an experienced user(s) (to the format) closing their question whilst maintaining our current (excellent) ability to close "noise" an keep "signal"?

Answer 1

I'm all for explaining in comments and on meta the reasons why a question is closed, and I'm for working with people who have demonstrated a desire to improve their question (i.e. good faith actors), but I'm not on board with bending over backwards to try to save every single question.

Many questions are terrible. They can't be saved and/or the person asking them has no desire to save them. The perceived value behind Stack Exchange is that you get answers to problems quickly: that in certain cases, it's better than Googling. Many users don't have the time or inclination to try to decipher all the rules and requirements: they'll just go somewhere else or waste their time complaining.

And contrary to popular belief: that's fine. Stack Exchange is not the only game in town and it does not have to cater to everyone asking a question. Everyone's welcome, but Stack Exchange is only able to provide answers that outclass other solutions because of those pesky rules and guidelines.

To mix metaphors, if a user honestly wants to learn how to practice the Zen of Stack Exchange, there are tons of Mr. Miyagis waiting in the wings to help them out. This type of user shows initiative by asking others—in a constructive manner—why their question got closed. They don't throw a hissy fit about censorship or getting blocked, and they don't just leave never to be heard from again.

So lets cater to them. Forget creating holding queues, changing the verbage to "temporarily closed" (it really isn't temporary if nobody improves the question), and "timed closures". Let's just add more information about how to get a question re-opened to help those who are actually interested enough to learn more about why their question was closed.

Instead of just explaining in the close notice what's wrong:

Closed as not constructive by Mark Trapp, John Doe, Seymour Skinner, Joey Ramone, Hunter S. Thompson

This question does not meet enough of our six guidelines for constructive subjective questions. All questions should be practical, answerable, and of some educational value to the greater community. Chatty, open-ended discussion questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.
See the FAQ.

Replace the last line (See the FAQ) with a link explaining how the user can get their question reopened:

See how you can get your question reopened.

Which would link to a page that explained a few things:

• Why questions are closed instead of left open (see English.SE and Programmers.SE for examples)
• General tips on how to improve a question so it can be reopened (perhaps a link to or copy-paste of How to Ask
• What recourses users have to appeal a closure (link to meta, flagging FAQ)

Answer 2

Many technical solutions have been discussed but I've seen few I liked.

I think the only thing that can be done with the current tool set is direct communication in the form of comments to accompany as many closings as possible.

A nice "Hi, welcome to xyz! Your question is a bit broad. On xyz.SE, we try to ask questions that are specific to ....." will go a lot towards making a new user feel welcome even though their first question gets closed.

This takes a lot of initiative and social skill from the small circle of mods and high-rep users who initially define and shape a new community, but it's the only way I can see!

Answer 3

Personally, I don't think social problems can be solved by technical measures.

New users, community members need a pinch of ambassadorial behavior. That's not to say that the community has to give it to them... but I think something as simple as a "Welcome to StackOverflow; your question is likely to get closed because..." can go a long way with some new users.

Some users already write comments to that effect, and good on them. Other users don't, and that's their prerogative.

---

Addendum:

Perhaps a badge for commenting on those questions one votes to close?

Or a badge for leaving a comment with the words "Welcome to StackOverflow" in them on a new user's first question?

Answer 4

A perhaps unpopular premise: we don't need more questioners on stackoverflow.com. We have more than we know what to do with. We are much more concerned with limiting the impact of people who won't ever play by the rules than we are concerned with possibly scaring off a person capable of learning from his or her mistake. Some new people read the hints that are jumping out of them off of the screen. Those people do fine.

Tools/flags has been over 200, and steading growing, for days. The person-power is not there to put even more detailed attention into poor questions in the hopes of helping more people get it right the second time.

Answer 5

I think Pekka's solutions you linked to aren't really viable because they stop answers from being posted, and the problem isn't about getting answers, it's about getting poor questions.

Otherwise, I like the idea of a timed close. If you do that the problem will be that if the question isn't edited sufficiently, then it may be hard to get it reclosed. We'll have to create another queue in the Review page for timed close expired posts, so they can be reviewed again.

Answer 6

It all depends on why we close questions. The usual reason is to keep the quality of the question queue high. None of us wants to see the same uniformed questions asked over and over by hit-and-run askers who can't be bothered to read the FAQ or search for similar questions. Nor do we want to have lots of people wast their time on poorly specified questions or see spews of answers to trolling questions.

However, there is a nugget of truth in the old chestnut, "There are no bad questions." I've always understood it to mean "Don't let the mechanics of phrasing a question stifle your curiosity." To me, the current "close" mechanism turns that concept on its head. If there's any curiosity behind a close-worthy question, it's squashed as comments, votes and pre-close answers turn against it. The less technical the site, the more jarring the "close" process is likely to seem.

I think changing terminology could help. Encouraging constructive comments would be good too. And the message on a closed question could probably use work.

On the technical side, introducing a "soft-close" (which might replace the current close) could do the trick. In retail, some stores don't close abruptly at the end of the day, but rather close the doors to new customers while letting current customers finish their shopping. It gets the job of closing the store done without customers feeling hurried. A soft close on StackExchange could mean that people already involved with a question (by commenting or answering) can still provide answers, but people who have not participated before closing time are locked out. The upshot is that the asker loses the wide field of experts by asking bad questions, but still has a chance of having their curiosity satisfied.

Perhaps users with high enough reputation could answer questions even if they haven't participated. Presumably, they will be able to give good answers to even bad questions. In fact, a more complicated system might be for each "close" vote to ratchet up the reputation needed to answer (or even see) the question. This would turn the binary "close" or "open" into a sliding scale of "closedness".

The technical suggestions are bound to have unforeseen consequences, so I reserve my right to oppose them in the future. ;-)