One thing I really dislike about SO is how quickly questions get closed by "know it all" people who has 3K or more reputations.

I do like helping people by answering their questions. I get more satisfaction (care) from answering questions in full than from the reputation, badges or other SO attributes. But most I can do is to leave a comment, which is bazaar, since for many closed questions I do get what people are asking even if it is not formulated in a way in which SO "little gods" like it.

What we can do

Can we have a "Vote to Clarify" vs. just a "Vote to Close", where, if enough votes is gathered (i.e. 5), no answers will be accepted until the author clarifies the question. The flow can be as cruel as SO likes it: for example a question can be closed automatically 3 days after clarification is not provided, etc..


This is not about "it needs moderator attention", but about a separate "vote to clarify" flow

  • 3
    A moot point. Close reasons are being changed very, very shortly. – user206222 Jun 5 '13 at 16:19
  • 1
    "Problem": "One thing I really dislike about SO is how quickly questions get closed by "know it all" people who has 3K or more reputations." Come on, do you expect to have any chance with such a "problem statement"? – Daniel Daranas Jun 5 '13 at 16:21
  • I am not asking, I am suggesting. I don't care to tailor the question for somebody's liking, all I care about in this case is clarity. – tolitius Jun 5 '13 at 18:16
  • 1
    @tolitius Yes, and this suggestion is useless, for two reasons: 1) There are no concrete differences between your proposed system and the existing one, 2) The existing system (which you have issues with) is undergoing a a rehaul anyway. – user200500 Jun 5 '13 at 20:06

We're effectively already going to be doing this. Also, see "Help us make 'Not Constructive' and 'Not A Real Question' closures more effective."

The problem with the language of the close reasons has already been identified, and is being fixed. Close reasons are being replaced with requests to clarify and improve the question. Not all that much different, but the verbiage changes.

| improve this answer | |
  • Can't believe I missed the news. Sounds like a good idea. – user200500 Jun 5 '13 at 16:25
  • @Asad: You're not alone. I just learned about this too. – Linuxios Jun 5 '13 at 16:25
  • great. thanks for the real answer. – tolitius Jun 5 '13 at 18:29

So you want something identical to "Vote to Close", which behaves in all aspects like being closed, except that it's "Waiting for Clarificiation"?

How do you determine when something has "been clarified"? Will a single edit count? Or does it need to be peer-reviewed, just like the "Re-open" queue?

Honestly, your suggestion doesn't add anything new that the "Vote to Close" and "Re-open" queue doesn't already handle. Closing a question isn't the end of a question's life -- it just needs to be fixed, wheether that means clarifications, examples, or something else.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    A lot of people who ask questions are not heavy SO users. they have no clue what it means if their question being closed as non constructive. If they'd receive something in a form of "please clarify ...", it would be a lot more useful: for them and for people who do have answers. I don't have a solution of "how", I merely wanted to start a discussion, but I guess it was a wrong place/time to do so. – tolitius Jun 5 '13 at 18:26
  • 1
    @tolitius There is an explanation for what "not constructive" means right there under the words "not constructive". The ability to comprehend that explanation has nothing to do with how long you've spent at Stack Overflow. – user200500 Jun 5 '13 at 20:01

A vote to close is already a "vote to clarify". Once the OP has clarified the question and dealt with the issues that resulted in the question being closed, you may vote to reopen.

| improve this answer | |

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