I just missed an audit while going through the First Post review:

How to make a certain element in a website (img, div…) appear at a certain time? [closed]

For exemple, I have a list of images i wanna show on the page, each have a specific time from which it starts being visible on the page. i'm working on asp.net so a c# solution would be prefered

(this is the audit)

I clicked "Looks good", but the community had chosen to close the question given the reason

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.

This is no longer a valid reason to close the question, so I don't think this question should be closed - downvoting it should if sufficient.

This is just an example however - you may argue that this question should be closed as too broad. My point is that as the rules of what is accepted here changes, the audits should change as well.

Should audit questions with obsolete closing reasons be removed from the audits?


1 Answer 1


The rules didn't change. The text used to convey them did. That wasn't a good (clear, complete) question when it was asked, and it still isn't.

Even if you don't think that question needed to be closed, you should still have edited it to fix the obvious spelling and grammar errors, down-voted it for being incomplete and lacking any research, or at very least left a comment with some helpful advice for the asker. You aren't doing anyone any favors by saying such questions "look good" - as you can see, they'll likely end up deleted.

Related: Reopen "minimal understanding" questions?

  • 1
    a) As you can read in the comments in your answer, a lot of users have the impression that the rules in fact have changed. I don't think this answers fits in any of the current close reasons. Feb 9, 2014 at 3:17
  • b) IIRC it wasn't possible to downvote this question Feb 9, 2014 at 3:18
  • c) I personally think that fixing the grammar in this question is to minor for an edit, but if the general consensus is that such questions should be edited, I'll do that from now on. Feb 9, 2014 at 3:18
  • What do you mean "it wasn't possible to downvote this question"? If you're reviewing posts in the First Posts queue, it should always be possible to down-vote them - that's like half the point of having the queue. If you ever get a review task in that queue without a down-vote button on it, report a bug.
    – Shog9
    Feb 9, 2014 at 3:20
  • 2
    And yeah - one typo doesn't necessarily warrant an edit. An entire post with messed-up punctuation, misspelled words, lack of punctuation and rambling grammar is always worth an edit.
    – Shog9
    Feb 9, 2014 at 3:21
  • I might have a bad memory, and that question should obviously have been downvoted. Feb 9, 2014 at 3:21
  • Regarding your first comment: a lot of folks had weird ideas about what the rules were - that's why we re-wrote the reasons, because they were confusing the heck out of pretty much everyone and leading to lots of pointless arguments between well-meaning people who interpreted them in different ways. Basically, we ended up with one big fat catch-all reason that folks pretty much just used for any "this question sucks" scenario without really thinking about it.
    – Shog9
    Feb 9, 2014 at 3:24
  • Yea, I've understood that - but I still don't quite understand on which basis this question should be closed using the current available closing reasons. Neither too broad or unclear what you are asking fits this question imo. Feb 9, 2014 at 3:29
  • It is pretty unclear, yeah. Ignoring the nitty-gritty omissions (he wants a C# solution for what sounds suspiciously like something that should be implemented client-side), he doesn't even make it clear whether he's talking about time since the page loads or time of day!
    – Shog9
    Feb 9, 2014 at 3:33
  • Fair point, agreed. Feb 9, 2014 at 3:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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