Seeing that it is possible to close a question as a duplicate of closed "not a real question" (NARQ) post, I propose that the NARQ be automatically be reopened with votes from the closers of the child question.

Question NARQ closed by User1, User2, User3, User4, User5
Question duplicate of NARQ closed by User 6, User 7, User 8, User 9, User 10
Question NARQ opened by User 6, User 7, User 8, User 9, User 10

Why? Because I believe there should only be a small subset of questions that are permanent closed and not deleted.

  • Duplicates
  • Archives

Anything else should be handled accordingly. In the case of NARQ specifically, we are saying simply this question isn't well defined. If 5 users point to that question

(where "question" here includes the question and answers that came with it)

as a resource for a duplicate then it contradicts the first 5 users' reason for closure.

Since we are optimizing for pearls and all.

Previous discussion
Should users be closing questions as duplicates of closed NARQs?

  • What about making sure the voters know their duplicate vote would also vote for re-opening the NARQ? If they don't like that, they could then pick another close reason. – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:47

Why would having duplicates make a NARQ question suddenly valid and re-openable?

One reason for closing a question as NARQ is if that question is too broad; let's say the user asks a question that'd take a whole book to answer. It is far from inconceivable that others will ask that same question again. And again. And then some more. Those would all be duplicates of the first closed question.

Does that make the first question a real question according to the Stack Exchange model? Absolutely not, the question should remain firmly closed.

The "Not A Real Question" closing reason is perhaps needs a subtitle: "Questions that do not fit the Stack Exchange model". Questions closed for this reason are not necessarily badly defined, they could also just not be answerable in the site format. Having duplicates won't change that; the duplicates cannot be seen as clarifications to the original, and certainly not as a justification for automatically re-opening the original.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    If I vote to close a question as a duplicate of a NARQ and four others agree... what did we just imply of the original question? – phwd May 11 '13 at 17:05
  • 6
    @phwd: That the new question is rehashing the same ground. But that doesn't automatically justify the reopening of the original question; the original question is still not answerable in it's current form. – Martijn Pieters May 11 '13 at 17:08
  • @phwd we agreed that it was the same question and is also NARQ and hence both should be closed and removed from the search index. – Amelia May 11 '13 at 17:08
  • 1
    @phwd: You seem to assume that NARQ only applies to questions that lack definition. If that is all that is wrong with the original, by all means go in, edit the question to add detail and narrow the focus, then vote to reopen. But I fail to see why that process should be automated just by virtue of having duplicates. – Martijn Pieters May 11 '13 at 17:10

No. Just because a question is a duplicate doesn't mean the original question is good, and this holds true for NARQ closures.

We close questions for the listed reasons. When there is a duplicate, those reasons don't change. The original question is still closed, and the reasons for that closure haven't changed.

What if the new question is not a real question? The duplicate, by extension, wouldn't be either.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    But the OP is not asking that all duplicates are re-opened. Just the ones that were closed as not being a real question. – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:02
  • 1
    @Arjan This general case applies to the specific case. – user206222 May 11 '13 at 17:03
  • 1
    I feel people should not vote as duplicate if the question doesn't belong on a site to start with. Sure, it might give the question asker the message they should have searched first. But, to me, it's also sending the message that the question would not have been closed if there would not have been a duplicate. I'd say that's either bad votes, or the duplicate was closed for the wrong reason. – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:12
  • 1
    @Arjan Probably, yes. But that's more of a side point with respect to my answer. – user206222 May 11 '13 at 17:14
  • So then we'd have to ensure the voters know their duplicate vote would also vote for re-opening the NARQ. If they don't like that, they could then pick another close reason. (As an easier alternative, maybe closing as a dupe of a NARQ should not be possible.) – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:49

On the contrary, duplicates of a NARQ are also NARQ. However, you cannot mark a question as a duplicate unless the target has answers. It's still NARQ (Though someone was probably trying to get a reversal badge if it has a decent answer to an unanswerable question...)

Think of it this way: With this logic, you can re-open a closed question by posting a duplicate of it.

The original question was closed. Closing another question should never automatically re-open another closed question. It must have reopen votes cast by design.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    "With this logic, you can re-open a closed question by posting a duplicate of it." and getting 5 users to vote to close as duplicate Vital information missing. – phwd May 11 '13 at 16:54
  • @phwd Which they very well might, even if the original question is bad. – user206222 May 11 '13 at 16:56
  • 1
    "duplicates of a NARQ are also NARQ" Why? That's the whole point of this question. This bold statement doesn't prove anything to me. – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:04
  • @phwd there's no vital information missing. The questions are closed for a reason, and should not be trumped because you closed another bad question. It defies the close model. – Amelia May 11 '13 at 17:05
  • @Arjan the OP is asking that questions that aren't real questions be reopened because a duplicate of it is posted and flagged as such. I'm reinforcing the error here, because these posts should not be reopened with this logic, and should be reopened explicitly. – Amelia May 11 '13 at 17:07
  • 1
    Pretty sure Arjan and I are on the same page even if he agrees or not, Hiroto you most likely didn't read the original discussion meta.stackexchange.com/questions/179820/… – phwd May 11 '13 at 17:09
  • @phwd the point here is that the question should not be automatically reopened. ever. it can be explicitly reopened with votes, but automating things like this is a very, very bad idea – Amelia May 11 '13 at 17:12
  • 1
    No, I don't think @phwd "is asking that questions that aren't real questions be reopened" – Arjan May 11 '13 at 17:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .