Questioner asked a very undercooked question. In 11 minutes it got -11 and plenty of comments pointing out that it was half baked. I was trying to wrap my ahead around the question and kept wanting to post a comment to the questioner to ask him/her to improve it by addressing a few specific things. I never got to it, because comments and downvotes kept raining in and I wanted to evaluate those before I said anything--didn't want to duplicate, wanted to read the comments, etc. Then it got closed.
So my question for discussion is: Is this how a bad/inadequate question should be received? Was the encounter a failure measured against some ideal of how this kind of thing should go? Was is a partial failure (too abrupt and perhaps too harsh)? Or was it a success, close to the way things would/should go in an ideal-ish encounter on SO (assuming the beginning question is not well put)?
Personally, I think this all went too fast and was at least a partial failure. The questioner never really had time to improve things. The question might have been salvaged, but if that ever was going to happen (big if) it needed more time, and a willingness to let the question develop, once it had been downvoted a few times--a signal to the author that it was not good enough as is.
I feel like there was a bit of a community failure here. The downvoting betrayed some frustration with poor questions that had risen to a level that would not allow this question to live long enough to be improved.
What do others think?