34

What happened to the close vote option for posts that describe an error or unexpected result but don't include the relevant code or any code!? This is on of the two most popular I use.. What am I supposed to do about questions like this now!?

I just also noticed "must show minimal understanding" is missing as well. After reading over the new option again, I am supposing that the intention is to use "not likely to be helpful for future viewers" for both of these?

Improve this question
6
  • hmm... "unclear what you're asking"? – John Dvorak Jan 9 '14 at 19:39
  • Now that I'm thinking of it more - the new option is awesome. It seems like most SO questions I see aren't likely to be helpful ever again to anyone. – m59 Jan 9 '14 at 19:40
  • It definitely is... but I miss the old ones now :-) – John Dvorak Jan 9 '14 at 19:41
  • 3
    See this topic and answer on the change. – poke Jan 9 '14 at 19:42
  • 3
    Yeah, I noticed that too. While I fully agree that the old flag reasons were sometimes misused, I feel like none of the new flag reasons really covers the case where someone just posted the text of a homework assignment and asked us to do it for him. Which means I have to use one of the new close reasons anyway, even though it doesn't quite fit, which is weird, given that that was probably the most frequent flag I used. – neminem Jan 9 '14 at 21:42
  • @neminem Yep, they don't cover the reason I'm voting to close. So now I have to basically pick an arbitrary one that provides the OP with a bad indication of why I felt their question lacked merit enough to belong on SO. – Yuck Jan 28 '14 at 16:52
11

It has been removed, along with the "minimal understanding" close reason. You should use the "unclear what you're asking" or "can't be reproduced" reasons instead - but see this answer by Shog first.

Improve this answer
7
  • 2
    Why has it been removed? Is it like a chore to keep changing it? they have changed like 3 times since I have been a member and that's not long. – iConnor Jan 9 '14 at 19:39
  • That makes sense. I think my silly anxiety got the best of me. I'm used to my options heheh. – m59 Jan 9 '14 at 19:39
  • @Pinocchio: Read the linked answer. – user102937 Jan 9 '14 at 19:40
  • 2
    @Pinocchio This closing reason was removed because it often led to counterproductive question closures, so I think this change was very much needed. – Anderson Green Jan 9 '14 at 19:51
  • 2
    Wow, that really sucks, it's one thing to change the options, but quite another to remove them altogether (though I'm glad we have one for typos now). – Lance Roberts Jan 9 '14 at 21:25
  • 1
    Just out of curiosity, what happened to the usual discussion prior to a substantial change like this? There's typically a post here with a chance for feedback on the change, phrasing, and so forth. Did I miss it somehow? – Ken White Jan 10 '14 at 1:46
  • 2
    I'm sorry, but the "can't be reproduced" reason doesn't effectively convey that the reason the question was closed is because there's no code in the question. Askers frequently post links to either short demos (jsfiddle) or their own website thinking that qualifies as showing effort for CSS/HTML questions, failing to understand that these resources can disappear. The "unclear what you're asking" option isn't any better for these types of questions. – cimmanon Jan 10 '14 at 15:37

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