A question of mine was recently closed on Stack Overflow.

My closed question was not off-topic, it wasn't a poll or a discussion. I put in things I researched upon, it wasn't vague. It asked for alternatives to an implementation issue which is completely within the scope defined in FAQs by Stack Overflow.

The first guy, Wooble, who commented and downvoted - didn't even read the question properly. I specifically said that I was looking for alternatives, not necessarily to be coded in Python.

And even upon being asked in comments, the downvoters didn't care to explain. (The last downvoter downvoted after the comment was there, before the question was closed).

There has already been discussion on meta very recently upon the same topic.


I would like to hence bring forth the topic again and stress highly upon it. This is not constructive behavior in any sense as it only leads to frustration on OP's part having no reason for the question to be closed.

Why can't we make a comment necessary before down-voting? Apologies, if I am re-surfacing the topic again in a very short span of time, but I believe that given people are still practicing the destructive behavior, it doesn't reflect well on the SO moderation committee as a whole.

closed as off-topic by gnat, rene, Robert Longson, Ward, Werner Sep 21 '18 at 22:34

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "This question's topic is only applicable to one specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should relate to features or policies that commonly apply to the network or the software that drives it, within the guidelines defined in the help center. You should ask this question on the meta site where your concern originated." – gnat, rene, Robert Longson, Ward, Werner
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    There is no such thing as "the SO moderation committee as a whole." Certain reputation levels unlock certain moderation abilities. – user164207 Mar 26 '13 at 15:56
  • 7
    "Anyone has any ideas?" is probably something you should avoid in your questions. It is not easy to give a correct answer to that. – Bo Persson Mar 26 '13 at 15:58
  • 3
    "the SO moderation committee" Oh oh oh oh oh, can we call it "the Board of Silliness"?! – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 15:58
  • 11
    Nobody expects the Stack Overflow Moderation Committee! Our primary weapon is surprise! Surprise and closing questions... – user164207 Mar 26 '13 at 15:59
  • 3
    This is not constructive behavior Are you talking about not bothering to read the close reason? Then yes I agree that's not constructive. – Some Helpful Commenter Mar 26 '13 at 16:00
  • 1
    @Mr.Disappointment: The OP can cast their own reopen vote. – Robert Harvey Mar 26 '13 at 16:01
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey Wow, never did know that; seems silly on the face of it. – Grant Thomas Mar 26 '13 at 16:02
  • 1
    @Mr.Disappointment: I stopped wondering...there are so many people on SO which just allow everything. Nearly every question which gets downvoted into oblivion has upvotes mixed into it...it's sad somehow. – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 16:02
  • 3
    @SulfurizedDemonbobby Indeed, recently I notice quite literally any question can get at least one up-vote. Either bots are winning or humans are slowly becoming yet more retarded, unthinking animals. – Grant Thomas Mar 26 '13 at 16:03
  • 7
    Your question is asking for a lot. You want multi-core support in a browser using the Python language, and I didn't even think Python was well-suited for that anyway. It's kinda like asking "I want to travel to town on my blender. How can I do that? I tried the BlenderCar object, but it didn't work." – Robert Harvey Mar 26 '13 at 16:04
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey: You need to initialize the Engine first, the Electrical- and Gasoline-Implementations work best at the moment. Though, If you feel adventurous, you could use the Nuclear-Implementation. Also always funny is the Donkey-Implementation...also don't forget to initialize four tires! – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 16:06
  • 1
    @AshRj Obviously the OP would think it should be re-opened, they posted the damn thing. There's a bias. – Grant Thomas Mar 26 '13 at 16:07
  • 1
    @Mr.Disappointment: If I'm not mistaken, questions with close/reopen votes are pushed onto a review queue...so that makes sense in my opinion. – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 16:12
  • 3
    "leads to frustration on OPs part" - Your feelings have no bearing on whether or not something is appropriate for SO. Your question causes frustration for the rest of the users. – Mike B Mar 26 '13 at 16:13
  • 3
    @Robert But! Will it blend?! – Cole Johnson Mar 26 '13 at 16:15

Your question wasn't closed as being Off-Topic, it was closed as being Not Constructive. Specifically, you were asking for recommendations, and as the close reason states:

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 people want to comment when downvoting, that's fine, but it is not required.

From "Is it OK to indicate that I downvoted in a comment?" (specifically, the accepted answer):

Explaining the reason you are downvoting is perfectly fine, but it's not necessary to indicate that you downvoted. It's about the post, not about the votes. Stating that you downvoted them is contentious, and invites discussions that you don't really want or need to engage in.

  • 4
    @Sylar - No. No, it is not. Stack Overflow is not a recommendation engine. – user164207 Mar 26 '13 at 15:57
  • 6
    @Sylar: Provide us with Links and we'll answer that with deeds. – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 15:59
  • 1
    @Sylar - They aren't closed because there are only so many people who are able to cast close votes... Some bad questions slip through the cracks. – user164207 Mar 26 '13 at 16:00
  • 1
    @Sylar go find some. I'll bet that many of them are actually closed – Sam I am Mar 26 '13 at 16:00
  • 6
    @Sylar both of those are closed – Sam I am Mar 26 '13 at 16:01
  • 3
    And now look. This question has solicited debate, arguments, polling, and extended discussion. As for your examples, they are 2 and 3 years old, back when SO hadn't quite as clearly defined what was acceptable for the site. – LittleBobbyTables Mar 26 '13 at 16:01
  • 8
    Would it suck if I now come up with "I told you we should delete those"? – Time Traveling Bobby Mar 26 '13 at 16:04
  • 2
    @Sylar -- repeating my last comment, your new examples are 2 and 3 years old, back when SO hadn't quite as clearly defined what was acceptable for the site. There are millions of questions on SO, some are going to fall through the cracks. Finding those isn't going to make a case for you, it's just going to get them closed. – LittleBobbyTables Mar 26 '13 at 16:07
  • 2
    The OP knows what they did wrong by reading the close reason. – JJJ Mar 26 '13 at 16:10
  • 6
    @Sylar: You can't force people to comment on their close votes. They'll just say "blah blah grabblesnackers" when they cast their vote. – Robert Harvey Mar 26 '13 at 16:11
  • 2
    @Sylar: What about it? – Robert Harvey Mar 26 '13 at 16:13
  • 5
    blah blah grabblesnackers. I have a new user name! – LittleBobbyTables Mar 26 '13 at 16:15
  • 2
    @Sylar - Thanks for bringing that question to our attention. It is now closed. Next! – user164207 Mar 26 '13 at 16:16
  • 3
    @Sylar: That's actually a pretty good question. At least it's answerable. – Robert Harvey Mar 26 '13 at 16:17
  • 6
    Oy: add / show 35 more comments – LittleBobbyTables Mar 26 '13 at 16:22

Community members whose questions are closed already get feedback in a number of different ways.

  1. The close reason describes the general principle under which the question was closed.
  2. The community can (and does) post comments below the question.
  3. The OP can post a question here on meta asking for clarification.

Requiring users to post explanations for their behavior doesn't work, because it can always be worked around by posting nonsensical text.

If we forced people to explain their votes, you would engage in a protracted discussion with them about it (amply illustrated here), which is the main reason we don't force people to explain themselves when they cast votes.

  • My point was not to argue against my post. As you can see I just thanked the guy who explained me the problem with my question. I was just pointing out towards a suggestion that posters would like to know of what is wrong, so that they don't repeat the mistake again/frame the question better/improve upon the quality of the question. – user216909 Mar 26 '13 at 16:35
  • 9
    If only there were some way to force close-voters to select some pre-written text describing why they are voting to close the question.... – yoozer8 Mar 26 '13 at 16:36