Some questions do not need a "on-hold" option; providing one is just going to be confusing.



This question was an attempt to code something in C#, where a mail merge will suffice. Putting such a question "on hold" only delays the inevitable.

I would also like to be able to close (without an "on-hold" review period) those low-quality questions where it is clearly apparent that there is no hope of redemption.

  • 5
    Another good example might be programming questions here on Meta. – Josh Caswell Jun 18 '13 at 18:07
  • @JoshCaswell: That might be a good use case for comment and deletion. I'm still not fully convinced of the utility of pinging with deleted comments; I'll have to check that with my sock to see what it looks like. – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 18:08
  • Exactly what @JoshCaswell said. I saw a 'on hold' question here on meta and it just... looked weird. It was a programming question and had been downvoted to -10. Closed works better – Ryan Jun 18 '13 at 18:09
  • 1
    @ryan: I'm pretty sure that SE recently gave people the ability to see their deleted posts if they have a direct link to them (as they would if a deleted comment showed up in the collider). – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 18:10
  • @RobertHarvey hmm, well that could work... If they know what to do with it. However they will most likely try to respond on the deleted post, which it wouldn't allow them to do would it? – Ryan Jun 18 '13 at 18:12
  • @ryan: No it wouldn't. That's what we want; we don't want people to respond to mod-deleted posts, except with flags (if they can figure that out). – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 18:13
  • I understand that you don't want people to respond. I'm just saying they most likely will try to respond. Can we auto capture their webcam when they do so we can see their frustration? Cause I'm betting that's what will happen, and I'm also betting with some it would be very funny. – Ryan Jun 18 '13 at 18:17
  • Whatever happens though, I like your proposed feature request more then Manishearth's process. So +1 from me. – Ryan Jun 18 '13 at 18:19
  • 2
    @Robert I agree, your socks need a good checking. It's always interesting from their perspective. – Aza Jun 18 '13 at 18:28
  • That's true, I suppose there's no reason to wait on deletion for code questions on Meta. – Josh Caswell Jun 18 '13 at 18:32

No hope? That's deletable then, really.

Either way, "on hold" is just a wording change. In 5 days when it changes to "closed", nothing really changes other than the displayed text. So even if you _don't _ want to delete, I don't see much of a problem here.

  • So you think the "postal envelopes" one should just be deleted, then? – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 17:25
  • @RobertHarvey: That particular one? Not really sure, I don't know the topic so I can't say for sure if it's unsalvageable. Again, the on hold thing is just a wording change. – Manishearth Jun 18 '13 at 17:27
  • The OP pointed to a web server solution as a possible prototype, but it's a client-side problem, and the OP agrees that simple mail merge in Word is sufficient. No coding necessary. – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 17:28
  • The only problem I have with summarily deleting unsalvageable questions is that the OP may not figure out what happened, and just repost his question again. – Robert Harvey Jun 18 '13 at 17:31
  • 4
    @RobertHarvey: Leave a comment and then immediately delete. The OP will be pinged. And you don't need to summarily delete everything, imo there's no problem with them staying on hold – Manishearth Jun 18 '13 at 17:34
  • 2
    @RobertHarvey You can even delete first and comment later (we recently got the ability to comment on deleted posts). Now that people can see their own deleted questions if they have a link, not getting notified is not a problem (the link will be in the inbox notification they'll get for your comment). – yannis Jun 18 '13 at 18:35

I agree with you in principle though I look at it slightly differently.

I think that if a question is eligible for deletion then it should be "closed". This shouldn't be a solely moderator privilege; it looks kind of ridiculous that an off-topic question with -13 votes is "on hold".

Equally, deleting a question that's "on hold" defeats the ethos of the changes, but it's possible. Deletion is reserved for the irredeemable. An "on hold" question shouldn't be irredeemable. The semantics can be covered by "closing" a question that the community is able to delete.

A moderator can help a question obtain this, um..., distinction by downvoting.

You must log in to answer this question.

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