Shouldn't "off-topic" be only about... off-topic?

Question

A related question/discussion point to this one posted just now, but with a completely different rationale.

Whenever a question is closed because it doesn't contain SSCCE, or specific code, it also gets marked as "off-topic". I would argue that this is confusing, especially to new users, since they see "off-topic" in prominent font, and then the actual reason of the hold/close.

Off-topic has a quite specific meaning,

Not related to the matter under discussion...

which I don't think the following two points fit into:

• "Questions concerning problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance. " (how is not posting your code "off-topic", especially when the inquirer indicated that such code exists?)

• Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved. Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist (how is not demonstrating minimal understanding of the subject matter "off-topic"?)

Shouldn't those two sub-cases be in another category, like "not enough information"?

Answer 1

History

Over time, some close reasons that were carefully named came to be re-interpreted, and ultimately, misused.

Example: Too Localized.

Other carefully-chosen names repeatedly caused conflict due to the difference between the everyday meaning of the word and the Stack Exchange meaning of the word.

Example: Not constructive.
(To clarify, most people think this means being over-critical, whereas SE used it to mean open-to-debate, or even just having too large a number of OK possible answers.)

Solution: New, shiny close reasons that describe the actual reason.

Example: Primarily opinion-based.

What we should learn from history

Name your close reason with words that describe clearly to a newcomer what's wrong. Avoid redefining an everyday term such as constructive or on-topic. If it takes a paragraph to explain why not including code should be described as off-topic, it means you're not using language the same way as everyone else does.

(To clarify, most people think this means you've changed the subject matter to be something irrelevant, whereas Stack Exchange is now using it to mean that the question falls foul of one of the site's rules about what questions should be like.)

What should we do?

The best solution is simply to ditch the phrase off-topic, and use the actual close reason or a summary thereof when talking to users, and in the close dialog, group them as "site-specific reasons" instead of "off-topic".

Example: replace phrases like "closed as off topic: .... gave the reason .... should contain code" with "closed as bug not containing code".

That'll take too much time. Is there a simple, easy fix?

Yes, just find-and-replace the phrase off-topic with one that doesn't have a different meaning to what you're saying.

Examples:

• inadmissible
• doesn't meet community guidelines
• doesn't meet community standards
• against site guidelines
• breaks a site rule
• not permitted
• etc... etc....

The key thing is to say what you mean, directly.

If you can just simply replace "off-topic" with "inadmissible" or similar, why hasn't it happened yet?

The people who can change it are also the people who have been calling it off-topic for the longest, and are most familiar with the reasoning that led to the label off-topic. The more experience you have with the phrase, the less you see it as a jarring misnomer, and the more you think it's normal.

Act now before we all forget what off-topic means to the rest of the world!

Answer 2

I have to say that I'm very disappointed with some of the moderator comments that have been made in this discussion.

First of all, there is a level of defensiveness for the status quo that is frankly mind boggling. It's not like the status quo is something old. The term "off topic" was never applied to "not enough information" or "not enough effort" before the recent change to the close system. The status quo is new; it's not something that's been around for 4 years or something.

Indeed, the "status quo" would be better described as the old close reasons. And under them, "off topic" meant off topic: that the subject of the question was not appropriate for this site. Questions with too little information were closed not as "off topic" but as "not a real question". And so forth.

So don't act like that we have years of experience with the current "off topic means whatever we want it to mean" thing we have going on. We shouldn't have to justify changing it; the current system needs to justify itself. It hasn't been around long enough to deserve the amount of deference being given to it.

Second, the idea that words mean what we decide they mean... well, the lunacy of that kinda speaks for itself. The last time I heard someone saying that was in a "Lewis Carroll" book, and it was from a character that would be considered certifiably insane by human standards.

"Topic" has a well defined meaning to people, just like other words like "website". We can no more start claiming that "website" means "stereo system" than we can that "topic" somehow means "how I asked the question."

A question that is "off topic" is a question that, fundamentally, cannot be fixed without basically turning it into a different question. If it's not on-topic for SO, then that means it is fundamentally about stuff that SO is not about. That it's about bicycling or cars or boats or whatever, not about programming.

I understand that we instituted this system to allow more close messages. But why is it connected to the phrase "off topic"? Or more to the point, why does it have to be? There's no reason for us to consider questions that are poorly phrased to be off topic, even though the topic of the question is very much allowed.

Third is the hyper-defensive classification of people who are against the current "off topic" notion as merely being "itchy". That's so far wrong that it reaches the point of being disingenuous to the opposing side and borderline insulting.

This is not some phantasmal issue people are talking about. These misunderstandings happen daily now. Just look around on MSO; there are many questions from new users, asking why their question was "off topic." And when you talk to them, most of the time, it's not the specific close reason that they're confused about. It's the fact that it's called "off topic", which makes about as much sense to them as calling it "sideways".

Can new users get used to it? Certainly. But that's incredibly stupid. Remember: we instituted the new system to make it easier for new users. To give them better, more easily digestible close messages. If they have to get used to oddball wording in order to understand things, then the system has failed.

As for what we should do with those two close reasons, the answer is obvious: "needs repair". Because that's what we're trying to tell the OP: this is what's wrong with your question, now go fix that. Add some code so that we can see what's happening. Or tell us what you tried, so we can narrow things down.

There are really only two kinds of close reasons: the ones where we expect people to fix their questions, and the ones where we don't. Vague, or il-phrased questions are perfectly on-topic; they're just stated poorly. Subjective questions can sometimes be fixed, but the vast majority of them are fundamentally broken, as are questions about finding tools and libraries (again, usually). Off topic is one of the "unfixable" kinds of questions. If a question is off topic, then to get it on topic, you have to ask a rather different question.

That's really how we should split these. There should be a "needs repair" setting, and beneath that we have the two stock reasons (unclear and too broad), as well as some site-specific ones. There would also be "off topic" for things that are really off-topic. And there would be too subjective. Oh, and duplicate of course.

I agree that sites need to have specific off-topic reasons for things that really are off-topic (for example, asking for resources is a topic, and therefore it is something that can be off-topic for a site). But we shouldn't lump all site-specific close reasons under "off-topic". And being too lazy to do the UI work to do this right is certainly no excuse.

Answer 3

I propose replacing "off-topic" with the phrase

"not a good fit for this site"

(oh yeah, rock that heading, baby)

I think it would nicely tie together the various site-specific reasons why a question should be closed:

1. its subject matter
2. its vagueness or lack of information
3. or anything else!

In my understanding of the words "good fit", it also has the benefit of being free of judgemental overtones, unlike "inadmissible" for instance. I had previously proposed "unfit for this site" or simply "unfit", but as @random noted in a comment, this too can be seen as disapproving (even though we would be saying the question is unfit, which to my mind cannot be taken as meaning the question is incapable or incompetent, let alone the person who asks)

I think the idea of a question's fitness should be fairly easy to understand for everyone, whatever their current level of experience with the site.

Let's see how that would look in the flagging pop-over :

Flagging > This question doesn't belong here because it is
  . duplicate of...
  . not a good fit for this site because...
  . unclear what you're asking
  . too broad
  . primarily opinion-based

Or in the phrases :

[closed] as not a good fit for this site

[put on hold] as not a good fit for this site

Another reason I like the word "fit" is the inherent notion of a gradient. A question can be "an easy fit", "not very fit", "almost fit", "not fit at all"... words like "off-topic" or "inadmissible" sound like much more binary, yes/no, with-us-or-against-us kind of deals.

You can easily understand why a question is "put on hold as not a good fit". It could become a good fit, but the asker has to work on it, that's why it was "put on hold".

Arguments against other proposals

Two other proposals seem to have the favour of consideration by the moderators here :

"doesn't meet community guidelines" : I would argue that this is not helping people like me, the <3K flaggers. One still has to learn the meaning of the phrase, and what's behind it in the flagging pop-up, to get comfortable with it. When I flag a post because there's no SSCCE, I want a simple label or phrase to tell me (or remind me) where I should click. "Community guidelines" looks a little too serious or severe. I just want to say, hey, look, mods, something is a little off here. I think "not a good fit for this site" really captures what I'm thinking about the post I'm trying to flag. "Meeting community guidelines" has no gradient either : can a question "almost meet the community guidelines" or "barely meet the community guidelines"? Well... maybe, but you really have to strain the definition of the verb "to meet". The notion of fitness is more useful.

"out of scope" : the word scope is a little too close to the word "topic", so I think it has the same problems as "off-topic". I think when when a question lacks an SSCCE, it's much more natural to think "it doesn't fit in" than "it's out of scope". Again, scope is too binary, it's "what we want or don't want to see". "Fitness" carries the hope that a question can be made better.

Personally, as a <3K user, I can't seem to get used to the phrase "off-topic" when I'm flagging posts. I may find my way more easily after a couple of flags, but it seems like every morning on my first flag of the day, I have to retrace my steps... I really hope we can find something better.

Answer 4

I know there's been a huge debate on this already, but I cannot see why it wont be changed.

What is Stack's "off topic" meaning?
The term "off topic" is mostly used to describe and define "Types of questions Stack does not permit", or "not suitable" etc.

Those who feel it's clear enough, remember, something you have clear in your own mind that you understand perfectly, may likely not be clear at all to someone who has just discovered this 'something' and has no idea about it.

This is not necessarily about new users then, it's specifically about people who do not know that when stack refers to "off topic" it means "questions Stack does not permit".
That's a potential for a lot of people, and a great deal of new comers, because they would never guess this correlation from logic, experience of other sites (as it's unique to Stack), or even by eating unicorn dust on the errie first quarter of the lunar phase.

Here, only comments and answers could be deemed specifically as "off topic" as they're off topic to the question.

The fact the message then goes on to state:

Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved

Only confuses the issue even more as they continue to ponder: What is a topic? And now wonder: What has a topic got to do with my understanding of my problem?

I've seen this on questions where the reason "Too broad" would have been more suitable, but that's another issue altogether.

People not knowing Stack's definition of "off topic" probably think tags could be "topics", the question and subject could the topic as they define the topic. Not much else could be surmised as a "topic" for one to consider why it could be "off topic".

So the questioner asks a question, uses tags relevant to the question and the subject is a good summary of question and ties in the tags. They understand the problem they are asking about just fine. They believe it to be all good.
But no, because the issue was none of what they logically surmised it to be, as it's "not a question Stack allows".

Why should it be changed?
The fact these messages are to educate people and push them in the right direction, why use something quite vague to attempt to educate them?
Most other messages are pretty tight and describe the actual issue to even someone not familiar with Stack's specific ways.
Educate them so they can write a better question and contribute to the site - isn't this part of the aim?
You might as well just close it and have no message, in fact this would be better as it removes some confusion from the currently misleading message they get.

Potential negative outcome
So then they either:
1) Leave the site and not return;
2) Write another question, still not understanding the real issue so just as bad as the first;
3) Edit their question (as is suggested), still not understanding the real issue so don't improve it;
4) Come to Meta and ask what "off topic" means;
5) Lurk around and find out for themselves what "off topic" means;

Why they're bad outcomes:
1 obvious. 2 & 3 is a waste of their time, and likely other people's time who vote and potentially mods time, 4 same as 2 & 3 but additional people having to answer and post "dupe" links.
5 is only likely a waste of their time, but once they find out will join the group of "why is this saying off topic when it could instead say XYZ" and they become annoyed. They might even post on Meta suggesting a change, yet another thread about it...

Adding to 4 - They ask on Meta and yet again their question is closed. Even though the reasons to us/mods are clear why this would happen, from their perspective as a new user, getting their question closed that was asking why their other question was closed is not nice

Change it to what?
It's not all about one message, it's impossible to cater for all close/on hold scenarios with one message. It's about ensuring that every scenario is covered to provide people with a clear indication to the specific reason their question is closed or put on hold.

So used in conjunction with "too broad" and "Unclear what you're asking", as well as other comments, changing "off topic" to something more clear will stop all the confusion and frustration.

Just encapsulate the actual reason for the close/hold based on something that non-Stackies would understand, as seems to have happened fairly well with all other messages.

"Question is not suitable for this site". This is backed up by the current statement informing them that it can be re-opened if they can "edit the question to fit in with the rules" and a link to more info.

If they don't read the info from the link, well, you can't teach a dead monkey to fish...

Change makes people run for the hills
I understand the concern that introducing a new title may require having to educate people and bring confusion/more work/etc. However, it's quite simple.
Where you choose "off topic", put some new text to identify the change, such as:

o Off topic - will now show the message "Question is not suitable for this site"

Then whoever is selecting knows the old familiar off topic will now show a new message, and decide if the new message still fits in with their reasons for close.
And once after months it is familiar with everyone, drop the text "off topic".

Answer 5

If I click "Flag," one of the choices in "community specific reason." So if the community cannot edit the resulting message, seems to me it should say "Closed for a community-specific reason, which is:"

When that is followed by the specific reason, there would be no contradiction.

Answer 6

From another closed blurb:

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.

Questions must demonstrate a reasonable amount of research & understanding of the problem being solved. Please edit to either a) clearly describe your problem and the research done so far to solve it or b) include attempted solutions plus why they didn't work. In either case, be sure your expected results are clearly presented.

"Off-topic" is a valid reason for closing.

"Lack of research" is also a valid reason.

But, "lack of research" and "off-topic" are two completely different things, are they not? Neither one implies the other.

Answer 7

To quote Robert from a comment:

I still don't see anything here that is a significant improvement over off-topic. The meaning of "off-topic" is not as cryptic as you make it out to be; it simply means that the question falls outside of the site scope. The reasons why are clearly explained in the close banners.

I think that is a lot better than the current catch-all: "off-topic" sort of sounds like it's saying the question has nothing to do with the topic of the site (eg. programming for Stack Overflow), which may or may not be true when the question is closed for "not describing the specific problem and including valid code to reproduce it".

If we mean to say that the question falls outside the scope of the site (which is constrained by several factors besides topicality), why not say that explicitly?

This would mean that you don't need to move site specific close reasons elsewhere: if your objection is about the question not being a good fit for that particular site, it indicates that the question falls outside the site scope (either because it doesn't have anything to do with the site's topic, or because it violates other constraints on the types of questions that particular site welcomes).

To illustrate what I'm talking about:

Answer 8

Strictly-speaking, those two reasons are intended to capture some of the meaning of the old "Not a Real Question" close reason that was lost as we reworked the system to be more specific.

Of course, for folks who only read the first line of the close reason, the old way was no less confusing: they are real questions after all, just not ones we want to encourage here. If anything, Off Topic is slightly more accurate: we (as a community) have decided to disallow certain questions based on their form; the "topic" must be a programming question clearly defined and stated in the question body itself.

It's a stretch, but we've been redefining "programming question" to meet our specific needs for years now - the alternative isn't something anyone seems particularly interested in.

And sure, you can argue that these two close reasons would be slightly more appropriate as sub-reasons of a different top-level close reason such as "Unclear" - but since there's no support for sub-reasons of anything other than Off Topic in the current system, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

As for the notion expressed in the comments (and a few other answers here) that the term "Off topic" is itself inherently confusing, and can be replaced with something else wholesale resulting in the instant edification of all future new users... You're dreaming. Folks aren't shocked and confused when told that questions on the best PDF library are off-topic for Stack Overflow because of the term "off-topic" - they're shocked and confused because it seems like the sort of topic that would be acceptable on a site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

But don't take my word for it. Go ahead - find a sincere, off-topic question from a new user and instead of telling them that it's off-topic tell them that it's "inadmissible", or "against community guidelines" or "an abomination before the volcano god" or whatever. Anything other than a useful answer to their question or specific guidance on how they can improve their question to be on-topic and answerable. Seriously - try it. Let me know if you find a magic phrase that makes folks happy...

Answer 9

I want to point out that the arguably clunky choice of "off topic" is serving a very important function, and the only alternative in this thread that I think preserves this is "not within site scope," which I would agree is an improvement, because "scope" is more correct than "topic."

However, the basic problem the new, large category of "off topic" solves is this: many questions that askers might post here, like "where is the error in my code?" or "how do I build a social network?" are perfectly fine, good, intelligent questions - just, if asked to a GSI or friend or coworker, not if posted to SO. I would like to think that over the course of a work day, I ask many brilliant, insightful, subtle questions to one of my coworkers. Problem is, they don't contain an SSCCE. So they're a bad fit for SO, but were great questions when I asked them, and it's disingenuous to call perfectly reasonable things one might ask a professor or coworker, "not a real question," or "not constructive." Besides - why even get into that argument in the first place when you can simply say, "sorry, that type of question we decided doesn't work here."

With that in mind, let's review some alternatives proposed:

• "inadmissible" - okay, why is it inadmissible? In our minds, in this thread, it's because they're off-topic. In real life... it's because they're somehow low quality and immoral and wrong. The point of "off-topic" is to get away from this editorialization.
• "Doesn't Meet Community Standards." - same problem. Why moralize this? Questions I ask my coworker are great, high-quality, clean, politically correct, insightful, brilliant questions. I just don't always provide an SSCCE when I ask them. This has nothing to do with standards; and everything to do with topicality.

Answer 10

So a user asks a question, it's closed with the specific offtopic reason of not providing a reproducible code sample.

I can understand that new user reading the big "offtopic" and being a bit confused, at least some of the time, as they may be using a slightly different definition of the term than the site.

At that point the user has two options:

1. Continue reading the close reason, seeing the more specific reason provided, and understanding what the problem is with their question.

2. Ignore the rest of the close reason and go make a fuss in comments or on meta about their question being offtopic even though it's about programming.

For all of those that choose #1, I don't see it as a problem. So they're confused for 5 seconds. The problem solves itself so quickly that the negative consequences are quite low.

I'm not seeing people choose #2. Most people are just complaining about the 5 seconds of confusion that they had, but they've already worked out what "offtopic" means in context before they've even started complaining about it.

Since I've not seen a lot of cases in which it's really been a problem for question askers, I don't see a compelling need to make a change.

Answer 11

Topicality is determined by more than just the subject matter. Were it not, we could simply say that the topic is Programming. And yet, we have several sites devoted to Programming, each having a wildly divergent scope from the others.

On Stack Overflow, we generally require questions to have code in them to be on-topic for the site, as the site is a "by coders, for coders" site. The same is not true of Programmers. So while both sites share the "no shopping" close reason, only SO has code-specific close reasons.

Over time, I began getting into the habit of calling a question "off-topic" when it didn't meet the scope requirements of the site. On Stack Overflow, code is generally a requirement if you are posting a troubleshooting or "how do I do this" question. Such questions without code do not meet the scope, and are therefore "off-topic" by definition.

So while I understand why putting the site-specific close reasons under "off-topic" makes some people itchy, it's not exactly hard to figure out, and it would be a challenge finding something that works better than that.

---

If you really want to change "Off-Topic," how about "Doesn't Meet Community Standards."