I was surprised to learn from the latest podcast episode (#60) how serious SE is about predicting good questions as well as about reviewing.
I feel I put quite some effort into my questions, and they still don't always generate many or good answers. How could I get better at this? There are always the help files but those seem to be meant for people already knowing that they should ask a better question and actively seeking help (OK, I am now), instead of getting proactive real-time suggestions when the question is going bad. (The site does recommend other posts, why not recommend question guidelines?)
Where are the lessons from the Vowpal Wabbit experiments, at least the ones that can be shared? (I learnt that e.g. "thanks" predicts bad questions, but there is no point in telling people not to thank, that won't improve the otherwise already bad questions.)
A more operational idea: Why can't we spend some of our reputation to ask for review? I spent some on a bounty on a question, but that did not help.
By the way, many of my questions arise from bugfixing, so they can be very specific, and I am happy to provide detail to help pinpoint the issue. On the other hand, this makes the question less useful for others and posterity. Who will weed out the with-hindsight-irrelevant details?
I was also surprised to learn that some generic tags "worsen" question quality (e.g. simply tagging java). Are they better avoided, then? I thought it is better to use five tags no matter what. Again, the site could gently nudge us away from this, then.