Help us make "Not Constructive" and "Not a Real Question" closures more effective [closed]

Question

In the recent off-topic discussion, Pekka 웃 suggested that other close reasons could be further broken out as well . We've got some more specific ideas along those lines, and we want your input and suggestions. Get comfy; this one's long.

Goals for "Not a Real Question" and "Not Constructive"

These goals will look familiar if you read the Off-Topic closing post, but the solution will likely differ. Here's what we want to achieve:

• make the problem clear — the close reason should make it as clear as possible to the OP exactly what is wrong with their post
• make them want to fix it — the language and workflow should encourage editing wherever possible (improving a post should seem more logical than arguing against closure.)
• make those things happen in-line — if we send them to another page, we'll lose some users
• minimize site-specific solutions — site by site differences should be limited to places it's truly necessary. "Off-topic" is literally defined differently on each site, so it needs customization, but we want the names and verbiage for the rest to be consistent.

Why are we doing this? Is there really a problem today?

Again, these reasons are working. If my choices were to keep em as is, or dump em entirely, I'd keep em, as they are doing a damn good job ensuring that our sites don't ever look like this site does. (Those all came from their front page.)

But, while we don't need to change what these reasons do, we can improve two things about them:

1. The problem they describe needs to be clear and specific

Consider this closed question from our apple site: What's special about Apple Airport Extreme?

Imagine you're the OP — since he's not spamming, trolling, etc., we can assume he thought he was doing the right thing when he posted his question. So, when his question is closed as "Not Constructive", he presumably won't think "oh, of course!" — he needs more information to figure out what's wrong. Let's see what we give him:

the question is "Not Constructive" I'll revisit that phrasing in the next section, but it's safe to say that it does little to identify the exact problem.

We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise. "Well, that's perfect! I'm actually looking for all those things in your answers, and I specifically highlighted a couple I thought might be relevant (Wifi range, transfer speeds, etc.)"

This question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. "Will it? It's about the specific specs that make An Apple router different from other, similar ones; it's not exactly 'who's right and wrong in the Middle East'"

If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened "Improved how? I still don't know what I did wrong. Re-opened? How can I prepare my case for some appellate court when I don't even know what I did wrong yet??"

see the FAQ for guidance:

Yup. That's the same definition, complete with a link to itself.

So, what's actually wrong with this question? For this discussion, it doesn't really matter. What's important is that whatever's wrong, the current close reason doesn't convey it to the OP, so he still can't improve or avoid it.

I used a "Not Constructive" example, but NARQ has a similar problem. It reads:

There are five possible things that might be wrong there, and while the closer may know exactly which one is the problem, the asker presumably doesn't start from the position that his post is any of those undesirable things, which makes guessing which one applies to him challenging.

2. The wording shouldn't make you defensive

"Not constructive" seems polite to us, because we feel like we're essentially using it instead of

"that has no answer; stop wasting our time"

or

"you're kind of ranting and being a jerk"

But that's not the context for the asker. The asker thinks they asked a perfectly reasonable question. As such, they're unlikely to respond by thinking, "I could be more constructive". From their perspective, it sounds like something a slightly detached guidance counselor might say to a child.

And even if they just got back from some meditation, and are just really, really open-minded, there's still no opening to say, "okay, I should try to fix that," because it isn't specific enough. So, their only logical response is defiance: "Why isn't it constructive?"

And the same is true of "Not a Real Question". Everyone thinks they've asked a real question. I imagine myself being told by a colleague at work, "I read your email. That isn't a real proposal". It's almost impossible to honestly convince myself that I'd think "Huh that's odd. I thought it was. I wonder how I can improve it to make it a real one".

Which is part of why NARQ closures tend to elicit arguments citing the prominent inclusion of question marks, rather than legitimate attempts to correct problems.

Okay, enough complaining. What can we do about it?

Well, we want to continue to close the questions these currently are used for, but we need to make the feedback clearer, and incentivize improvement (or at least learning). Here's what we came up with:

Eliminate "Not Constructive" and "Not a Real Question", and replace them with more specific reasons:

unclear what you’re asking — Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking.

too broad — There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.

primarily opinion-based — Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.

In all three cases, not only is it clear what the problem is, it should also be clear what you need to do (when possible) to make the question acceptable. It's slightly less explicit in the last reason, but that's because fewer of those are savable.

To see if these reasons seemed to cover us, we had both community team members and mods try to apply them to a largish sample of previously closed questions.

Based on that review, we believe that these reasons will cover almost all current NC and NARQ questions — our sample had 94% well-covered, with the remainder pretty easily addressed using site-specific Off-Topic reasons, as proposed here.

That was long. Did you want something?

Of course! We want your input. We got a lot of these ideas from meta posts, and we've done enough testing (both inside and outside our echo chamber) to feel good about the approach, but we want to know what you think and how you might tweak or improve it.

Part of the close reason rework project:

1. Changes to "close as duplicate" (part deux)
2. Help us make "Off-Topic" close reasons clearer to the OP
3. Help us make "Not Constructive" and "Not a Real Question" closures more effective
4. Every "close" has its thorn: replace "close" with "on hold" for the first five days

Answer 1

Provide the OP with all the reasons that their question was closed.

It would be helpful to show the OP all the reasons that the question was closed instead of the one that a majority of closers picked. If two people pick primarily opinion based and three pick too broad, the OP should be made aware of both problems. Otherwise, they'll edit the question to narrow the scope, eliminating that problem, but still end up with a question that's just going to be closed again because it's opinion based.

Answer 2

I long ago had campaigned for the too broad reason (and they had inserted that language in the NARQ comment), so I think that one is great. My main feedback would be for you to specifically mention polls or list questions in one of the reasons (probably primarily opinion based). We may be able to close knowing what those are, but the user may not understand that that is what opinion is referring to.

Answer 3

I too like the three new close reasons.

My only remaining complaint about the closed question banners is the final sentence:

For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.

What help does the user receive upon clicking that link? A list of the same closure reasons with the identical text and circular links back to the FAQ. They also get another link (wait, I thought this was the place where you explained what I should do; I have to go somewhere else now?) to the How to ask which contains only the most basic, general advice:

• Do your homework
• Be specific
• Make it relavent to others
• Be on topic
• Keep an open mind

None of that is likely to pertain directly to the specific reason the asker's question was closed, nor does it give specific advice that's likely to pertain to the asker's question.

I would much prefer to see the following at the end of that link:

• A curated selection of real example questions that were closed for the same reason, edited and then reopened.
• A more detailed explanation/description of the close reason (the sort of explanation that you'd get in a good answer on Meta, but that's too long for the banner).

The reason I want to see this additional change is that communicating to people clearly about why their question was closed it only half the battle. We also need to do a better job of explaining more specifically how the asker can improve their question.

Obviously, I think this idea is more applicable to some close reasons than others. For instance, we're probably not looking for people to improve and reopen duplicates, or possibly even off topic questions.

Answer 4

The wording actually reads well and makes a lot of sense. Huge kudos for that!

One thing I'd like to pitch in would be a note to the poster (not necessarily visible to the rest of the world), explaining to them that a closed question isn't the end of the world - if they improve their question to not be in one of those categories, then it could be reopened.

Answer 5

I'd like to see some wording that makes it clear the question isn't suitable for the StackExchange network of Q&A sites to the "too broad" and "primarily opinion based" closed reasons.

There has been many times in the past when users don't understand why their "good" question got closed as "not-constructive", but once it's explained that their question isn't necessarily a bad one, it just isn't suitable this Q&A network because of the quality of question they try to maintain, then the user is OK with the closure.

I see the same thing happening with the "too broad" or "primarily opinion based" close reasons. Users won't understand why their questions are not considered "real" questions and are getting closed, so I think it's important we are clear that we're not saying their question is bad, we're saying they are bad for this network of Q&A sites

Edit

I'm referring specifically to questions that are seeking opinions, polling, or a broad lists of recommendations. Questions like that aren't necessarily "bad" questions, they're just not suitable for Stack Exchange and typically get closed because the end result is a list of everyone's favorite X, sorted by popularity. Having them get downvoted and closed is often seen as "they think my question is bad" when it reality the reason is "this question is not suitable for this network of Q&A sites"

Answer 6

I like the general solution, with more specific explanations of what is wrong, designed to encourage fixing it. But there's one problem remaining:

You're still calling it closed.

For these particular things, we should call it "Needs Work" or something to that effect. "Closed" has a more permanent meaning; it discourages fixing it. If it were named with "[Needs Work]", then it's clear that fixing it is encouraged. Obviously it should be functionally the same as closing, just like "Duplicate" is identical to "Closed" now.

Answer 7

Let's start large. For many users, the fact that there's a big fat [CLOSED] tucked at the top of the question means that the question is dead. It cannot be revived, and no one cares about it. That's because many users come from a forum background where CLOSED (or LOCKED) mean that the thread is closed by moderators, and is likely to never be revived.

They stop reading there. That's why the very definition of "Closed" needs to change. Perhaps "On hold"? or "Needs improving"?

As for the reasons:

Not a Real Question

Much like the off-topic suggestion, I suggest breaking it up to several sub-reasons:

• Too broad.

  This question is not reasonably scoped. An answer to this question would probably be too long to be actually useful. Try editing and focusing your question onto a more specific issue.

• Incomprehensible.

  This question is unclear to the point where it cannot be answered. We simply cannot understand what you are asking! Try to edit the question to improve the language, grammar and/or formatting so that it is clear what you are asking. Add code examples and/or screenshot to complement your problem.

• Not a question.

  This post is not a question. It is a statement, a rant or an article. Please edit your post so that the actual problem is clear, and your question is obvious. Reduce noise and background to the minimum required for clarity.

• General Reference (or some other more appropriate name)

  This question shows absolutely zero effort. The answer for this question is easily searchable, widely available or is part of an official manual. We expect our users to perform some level of research and effort on their own, before turning to help.

Not Constructive

I can make a distinction between two types of Not Constructive questions.

1. The question itself is not a good fit, and never will be (because it, at its core, is intended for debate)
2. The question can be reworded to avoid the debate (by focusing on technical details only, for instance). These are usually something like "Which is better? X or Y?"

The first case

This is a problematic one. There's nothing much we can do to improve the question generally. The question itself is not a good fit for the site, no amount of improving, revising, or editing would suffice to reopen it (and if they do suffice, the OP should probably post a second question). Therefore, the phrasing I propose is:

This question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. See the FAQ before asking more question to prevent more closed questions.

The second case

Could actually be improved, so I suggest something such as:

As it currently stands, the question isn't a good fit for this site. Try to edit it to be less subjective in nature, focus on technical or real comparable details instead of asking other people's opinions, ask for their expertise.

Answer 8

(I thought I'd suggested this long ago, but I can't find any trace. This is close to Rachel's point.)

By and large there are three types of reasons we close questions:

• Because the question has already been asked, and there's no point in duplicating the answers. Close reason: duplicate.
• Because the question is not a good fit for Stack Exchange. Current close reasons: NC, NaRQ, TL.
• Because the question is not a good fit for this Stack Exchange, but it might conceivably fit on another site. Close reason: off-topic, possibly with migration.

I think there should be three toplevel headings when closing a question, each with a submenu:

• Duplicate. Pick the duplicate question.
• Off-topic. Optionally pick a migration target (any site for moderators, only meta and vetted paths for others).

• “Not a good fit for Stack Exchange in its present form.” This one comes with several canned subheadings:

  • Unclear.
  • Too broad.
  • Primarily opinion-based.

I think some of the per-site custom close reasons should fall under ”not a good fit“ as well. When SU rejects mobile phone questions, it's a matter of topic. But when a language site rejects a dictionary lookup question, or when SU rejects “shopping requests”, or when Gaming or SFF rejects recommendation requests, it's a matter of fit.

For example, experience on SFF shows that if a recommendation request is closed as off-topic, this leads to puzzlement: but I'm asking for recommendations about time travel stories, how is that not science fiction? There should be a custom close reason under “not a good fit” — something like “We have found that Stack Exchange's questions and answer format does not work well for personalized recommendations <link to meta thread>. If you have more than 20 reputation points, you're welcome to join us in chat<link> and discuss your favorite works.” (wording thrown in a hurry).

Answer 9

Whatever the issues are in the closed question, I believe it would not hurt to make it clear to the OP that the purpose of the closure is to prevent question from picking up new answers, which in turn is intended to make it easier to edit the question into a better shape and reopen (to me, this is the main purpose of question closure at all).

---

For further guidance for the OP interested in more details on how to improve (intended to replace current reference to "same definition, complete with a link to itself") I would recommend to explain to them the effects that their question edits might have on already existing answers (if there are any). That should help the OP make a better informed choice on the edit-to-reopen approach.

If possible, the guidance would also include a recommended norm / etiquette on question edits that may invalidate existing answers.

My understanding is that current community preference is for generally trying to avoid invalidation, up to the point of completely locking substantial edits to question. Since I personally have no sympathy to answers posted to bad questions, I wouldn't mind if the recommendation would be opposite - the main point is to just have some common reference to use when discussing issues related to edits that invalidate answers.

---

Regarding the guidance for improving "primarily opinion based" questions, I would like the OP to be referred to some explanation of "Atwood's transform":

... there is a way to ask these [types of] questions that avoids the inherent problems with shopping recommendations...

For questions closed on grounds of polling for particular programming resources, it would be nice to also inform the OP about an option to edit it into constructive form by presenting an underlying problem instead - a problem that was intended to be solved with particular resource requested (if needed, refer to this discussion at Programmers meta for more details).

Answer 10

After my own first-time-meta experience yesterday I might be able to contribute with some more straight forward constructive insight. After getting some initial up votes my question was closed with the following text and I realized meta is apparently not the generic feedback place I assumed it to be.

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.

The wording might come across as unnecessarily harsh to some who are just here because it's somehow advertised as "feedback" channel all over the place (in all emails and on the very footer of this page in bold right next to contact us). My basic understanding of the term includes that any feedback is usually welcome, and at worst it should be discarded, if feedback is constructive that's good yet it's not a inherent requirement. The current wording implies that that I didn't meet someone's expectations, that's A-OK for keeping any Q&A site on topic yet not the best response if you're here expecting to be on a feedback site. Especially with first time posters I would rather assume good faith than imply they don't know what they're doing and somehow broke something. People with ill intentions don't get scared away by words alone anyway, so no need to sound demanding or lecturing about any attempt of interaction with the site.

Also the special nature of meta votes could be featured more prominently, especially first time users, who would otherwise add some valuable input might be alienated by it's volatility.

For meta, I would propose this explanatory text which includes encouragement to further constructive site interaction, a description of what happened to your question, why it happened and what you can do about it without resorting to words like expect and solicit:

We appreciate any feedback, yet this question, in its present state, will likely not lead to constructive discussion and is currently closed from further answers. Please see the FAQ for guidance and best practice on how this and future questions can be improved to match this site's Q&A style and scope.

Answer 11

After recently posting a question and getting it closed, I went though this process from the other point of view, the closee. I believe what is missing for people like me is a path to rectify the situation. As the closee, you have very little to go on unless some closer has left some specific advice.

I found no good information as to how I should go about trying to fix my question. The FAQ did not help much. I ended up posting something here on Meta. With the help I found there, I found it amusing to see my question re-opened, closed and re-opened again. Subsequently I found out that this path is often followed as a de facto appeals process. I have seen various entries here on Meta-SO that lamented the use of Meta for this type of appeal. It's certainly not the most pleasant way, nor the most efficient I expect.

I also saw mention that you could edit the question and then flag the question for moderator review. I did not see that in the FAQ, but maybe I just missed it. Obviously it not not occur to me to do that. Is it really the right way to do it?

I suggest the following change. Add a button on Closed posts next to "flag" and the others that says, in fewer words, "I have edited my question, please reconsider". I suspect that will cut appeals here by half or more. Make available to the Closee text that suggests a rewrite and reconsideration request. Just having a clear path to follow will greatly improve their experience.

And for their part, make it easier for the closer to leave feedback aimed at a successful rewrite of the question if they think that is possible.

I do think the proposed rewrite of the "reasons" are good ones.

-Bob

Answer 12

I very much like the suggestion: as it stands, it isn't easy for a user to tell from a NARQs/NCs what to do to fix their question. The proposed change makes it much easier to know how to improve the question. The One problem with this proposal is the result of its attractiveness, and the flip side of specificity: if the closure reason doesn't fit one of the proposed reasons, it isn't clear how to categorize the reason the question was closed.

As an example, I want to use the sour cream question-type as articulated by David Kessner on meta.EE: this is a common type of question on EE.SE

Using 1 quart sour cream, three bolts of different sizes, and a pen how can I ride a horse?

Under the old system of close reasons this would be NC. Under the proposed system (which I am in favor of), it isn't clear where this fits. The real reason this question should be closed is something like "The premise of your question is flawed". Of course, we could argue that this should be another close reason. However, I am sure other sites have other good (and specific) reasons to close questions that likewise don't fit in the proposed categories: gimme da codez questions, whatever.

It seems that if we want to give very specific feedback on closed questions the need be many close reasons, perhaps selected in a non-mutually exclusive fashion. However, it is not clear how maintainable such a system is. Perhaps there need to be some catch-all close reasons specisely for the cases where the proposed categories do not fit. However, if 50% of the questions can be closed using a more specific reason, then this site will be more friendly towards new users.

Answer 13

The wording is much better, I can finally close as NARQ without having folks complain "But there is a question here, you dimwits! Can't you see the question mark?"

However, regarding NC:

Not Constructive has many facets. "primarily opinion based" is something rather debatable and doesn't really cover all in the form presented; I suggest we add

• recommendation question - Questions asking for book or product recommendations tend to be opinion-based, and are off topic on [site]. We suggest you edit the question to ask "What should I look for in an X?" instead of "What is the best X?" and be more explicit about what you need it for.

as an explicit category. big-list questions should probably have their own category as well.

These are the types of NC posts I generally come across. For these, "opinion based" is just as arguable as all the points on the current NC banner. Explaining NC is hard. It is far better that the banner explicitly says that we disallow such posts, and tell the OP how to fix the question.

---

Also, it may be helpful to link to the relevant meta posts and/or blog posts in the close reasons. Especially the Q&A is hard one.

Answer 14

Not Contructive

Anything that can be done to improve the situation ought to be done. The current definition, as a catch-all, doesn't help the poster to even begin to fix the problem.

I had this exact difficulty on music.SE with What's the most useful alternate tuning and why? [closed] and my two meta questions Facts, References, OR Specific Expertise and Good Poll/Bad Poll — Lesson to learn?.

Singularly unhelpful and frustrating is being quoted the same definition again when asking for clarification.

Answer 15

Although I have answered an okay number of questions on SO, I have only ever asked one. I asked after doing a lot of research trying to solve myself. I was excited to go out of my usual area where I know the answers into a different tag to ask something where I didn't. Right away I got asked for the code, and I very happily added that and thought this really is great, someone actually responded and with a reasonable request that I should have thought of myself. Then the question got closed as not a real question and I really have to say I will likely never ask a question again. The message said it was rhetorical. I really don't know what would make it rhetorical given that I really just wanted (and still want) to fix my code so it doesn't generate notices. It was certainly a hard question without an answer that you could find by searching in Google or the obvious places in the php manual; it would need to be answered by someone who really knows a lot about utf-8 handling in php, but that doesn't make it rhetorical ... I'm just sharing this because I really agree that he standard messages are discouraging and not helpful

Answer 16

I don't think grouping "you didn't ask a question" and "you didn't provide enough detail" together is a good idea, since the labeling "you didn't provide your research" as unclear what you’re asking seems incorrect to me.

I find that I want to leave a comment explaining for insufficient detail questions because the existing reasons are vague (taking up two words total) even though it is a very common occurrence.

For example this question which asks a question, but needs more information to be a proper question.

Answer 17

The changes proposed here will result in some great improvements, for sure.

I just wonder if the self-imposed constraint that all the close reasons should be valid for all sites in the SE network isn't a bit too stifling?

If the rules that have evolved on the various sites are diverse from site to site, then maybe it should be possible to create diverse close reasons, too?

This would also allow to use more specific language relating to the topics of the site. The current very generic language (and even the improved language in this proposal) can be difficult to relate to, especially for someone with English as a second (or third) language.

If it is a goal to keep the close reasons unified (KISS!), then maybe the descriptions of the reasons could be "localized" for specific sites?

Answer 18

The path to answers...

 Overview  --> Facts         --> Opinion    --> Discussion

 Wikipedia --> StackOverflow --> ?????????? --> forums

StackOverflow's "just the facts" approach is becoming the gold-standard for reliable, succinct information that is more specific than Wikipedia. To keep it that way, a great many of the closures are questions that largely call for an opinion.

While opinions must (mostly) remain outside the scope of this site to maintain its utility, by not providing a route for soliciting such opinions, are we throwing the baby out with the bath-water? Facts are better than opinions, but opinions (particularly by the high-caliber of expertise found here) still can have great value.

Perhaps there needs to be a slightly different variation of site (sub-site?) for opinions...

When a calls-for-opinion question is closed, the message could offer to move the question to the opinion site and present it for editing as often some verbiage changes might be needed. Such a site would be very similar in format and features to StackOverflow except the length of opinion-answers might be limited (similar to comments) to discourage rants and promotions and encourage single-statement answers. Voting bubbles the most widely held of those opinion-answers to the top.

Answer 19

My most frequent underlying reasons (in my own interior monologue) for suggesting that a question be closed are:

• Too Coy: Did not supply anywhere near enough information to make possible anything but a pure guess.

• Too Gormless: Clearly didn't bother to read the docs, do a Google search, search Stack Overflow, try any code of your own, vel sim.

Without actually using potentially insulting terms like "coy" and "gormless", it would be nice to have a way to express these notions helpfully.

Addendum 1: A category frequently cropping up these days is something like "Willfully ignores the fact that this a duplicate." The Stack Overflow interface nicely presents possibly related questions, including some that give the answer perfectly, and the questioner just ignores this and asks anyway. I've seen the same question about NSDate and time zones nearly every day, for example. There ought to be a quick penalty for this, in my opinion, because it strains bandwidth.

Addendum 2: Another mental category I often come up against is "made some dumb silly mistake that is unlikely to be of interest to anyone." This kind of issue often gets fixed to the complete satisfaction of the questioner just by a little back-and-forth in the comments; the question never even gets (or needs) an answer. I try to cover that under "too localized", but it would be nice to have something clearer (and perhaps a fast track to deletion, since the question was just a kind of mistake all along).

Answer 20

I feel that people that leave comments after making a close vote stating why is often more helpful, as long as they're not just quoting the FAQ.

The problem is most close voters don't take the time to leave a comment on how the question could be improved. And each close voter, while sometimes selecting the same pre-defined reason, has a different perspective on what's wrong with the question, but they don't share it with the asker.

I would suggest that each close voter should be required to leave a brief statement on what the problem is and how the question could be improved. It should not be a comment - it should be separate, and possibly anonymous. If each close voter did that the asker would have 5 points of view to examine to help them improve their question.

This would work well if the reasons were only viewable by the asker / moderator (not a comment). That way one closer's point of view won't influence another's. And if a moderator comes along to review the question, they can see each closer's reasoning and make a more informed judgment.

(There may be some reasons that shouldn't require this, like spam. But I feel that if you made it optional people wouldn't do it.)

Why I'm suggesting this

I recently had a question of mine closed. I had one person comment on my question stating that it was too broad. Ok... How so? What parts of it were broad? I asked for clarification, and someone said it was open ended... Ok, that's almost the same thing as broad..., what specifically about the question was broad or open ended? 4 close votes later with no further explanation, and the question was closed. I commented more, and that didn't get me anywhere. The question was very important to me, so I didn't know what else to do.

So after some Googling, I discovered I could appeal by posting on meta. The first thing I did was search for other questions like "Why was my question closed?". How much success have other folks gotten? Many of these questions have a negative score... Seeing that is not very reassuring.

I decided to post on Meta anyway, and I got a clear and concise bullet point list from Bill why my question was broad, and what else was wrong with it. He also suggested I add some sample code. I then had a clear and precise blueprint of how to fix my question.

What bothers me is, up until Bill's response, the whole experience felt hostile. I didn't know what to expect. I needed an answer to my question, but I also felt peer pressure from other people, even before I had asked the question on meta! I badly needed an answer, so I pushed through... But how many other people with good questions feel this peer pressure and simply give up, like I could have done?

From the comments below this suggestion, people feel like they shouldn't have to leave brief comments to assist the asker because "experience has taught them" that most askers are too arrogant to fix their questions and "want it their way"... But I feel like you could have considered me arrogant and argumentative because I felt like I needed to be defensive for being attacked. This isn't just because the reasons for closure are so vague, it also has to do with the peer pressure of other questions being closed.

I feel like this is the wrong attitude to have - on either side. Only 1 of the 5 voters on my question bothered to leave a comment, and that comment was vague. The 4 voters who came along didn't leave a comment... but who could blame them? The first voter already left a comment - their line of thinking was probably something like "that feels about right" and they moved along. If they had not seen that comment, they could have individually been more specific. If each of the close voters had left 1 point from Bill's post each, I wouldn't have had to post on meta. Heck, the whole experience would have been more friendly.

I'm not asking for every person to be like Bill. But it would be nice if the system would encourage the 5 close voters as a whole to make up a Bill. I would have gotten the point earlier, been less frustrated, and saved a lot of time wondering what the heck went wrong.

Answer 21

What is the intent going forward with respect to questions that are closed using the old reasons? Presumably there would be a short visual indication that the old close reasons should not be used going forward with a link to FAQ announcing the change and outlining how to handle a re-open?

Just like the historical lock verbiage attempts to answer why something is in that state, if the old close reasons no longer apply, a user should edit the question to improve it if possible (so that it hits the reopen queue) or flag it for moderator attention to consider re-opening it should it need no edits to comply with the new criteria for a closed question?

This isn't directly related to the close reasons per-se so let me know if this belongs in another thread.

Answer 22

I believe that at the heart of the matter is the question of who we are as a community (on stack exchange). The reality is that most of us use computers (some very heavily) to make a living. Therefore, we tend to like questions and answers that meet standards similar that those we use for computer programs and systems of mathematical equations.

Good systems of equations lend themeselves to solutions that satisfy existence and uniqueness poperties. LIkewise, good questions generate answers that are "Turing complete." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

"Not a real question" (NARQ) means that a good answer does not exist (within the parameters of the question, because not enough variables have been specified. Put another way, the system is "undetermined."

And "Not constructive"questions means (to me, at least), are those that lend themselves to numerous answers that do NOT "converge" to "one best answer, but rather contain the potential for an "infinite loop." Thus, the system is "overdetermined."

Answer 23

In case of not-constructive closures, I think that each closer should be required to explain how to turn the question in a constructive one, so that the asker can address all the issues at once.

I'm quite open minded and I've put some effort to turn one of my questions into a constructive one, but despite reading a lot about SE policies and applying all concrete suggestions that I recieved, the question is still closed as not-constructive (probably due to "a knowledge gap that cannot be fixed since it's come with being around for a long time and seeing these things play out", as explained by a moderator).

Still I'd have wasted far less time into the process if each closer had explained from the very beginning what I had to do to fix the question.

edit
Obviously, as Kete Gregory pointed out, when a question cannot be fixed, closers should just say this "You can't fix this question". In such case, however we should remove a part of the closure message, that explicitly suggest to look for help.

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.

Answer 24

I like the added reasons but I think that Not Constructive should be retained with a blurb like:

The question you have asked is not constructive
We expect that all questions here will help to solve problems without being argumentative. The question you have asked is likely to evoke strong reactions that are not conducive to solving problems or answering questions.

This would be good for questions that appear to be on topic, and are clearly answerable but add no value to the site. Most of the questions that fit this mold are not intended to be answered but rather to cause problems through trolling.

Answer 25

Re. constructive-based it is important to stay away from the notion that answers being opinion based is the problem. All answers are opinions; some are correct, informative and useful in the collective judgment of our members.

The criteria we're actually getting at are more like:

1. This question has ideally one and no more than a few unique best answers.
2. After reading the highest votes answers, the user should not need to research the question anymore.

Would go with:

This question is likely to elicit differing, valid opinions. Questions on Stack Overflow should have one best answer community members can agree upon. Make sure your question may be answered with hard facts, references, or domain expertise, and that you are asking about a specific problem or issue that needs resolution.

Answer 26

Shouldn't we just refactor downvotes/close votes so that

• downvotes mean "This question needs to be improved" e.g. not enough information, too many topics covered, not related to a specific problem
• close votes mean "does not belong or should not be answered on SO": a poll or discussion, off topic, or otherwise not salvageable? ("Duplicate" falls under "should not be answered," consistent with current policy).

At -5 downvotes, lock the question from answers until it is improved, becoming effectively closed.

It's also not crazy to require downvotes to pick a reason. While it is fun to downvote really bad questions, there's not much value added from downvotes without a value-added comment anyway; this gives a middle ground. Do not require users to select a reason if they have already commented.

Note that status quo is closed questions are very hard to reopen even if improved. We need to solve that problem as well if we are going to move toward more encouragement to improve closed questions.