-37

Too many users are passive aggressive (or they just have a superiority complex). I can almost read their minds: "Oh brother, another newbie asking a stupid question."

Stack Exchange should track those who close questions to determine if it is bordering on unjust.

  • Track how many seconds it takes for a user to click to read the question and then click to vote-to-close it. The quicker the close vote, the more unjust the action.
  • Track if the user who votes-to-close at least wrote a helpful comment. The higher the percent of time no comment was made, the more likely the user is passive aggressive.
  • Allow new users to flag any comments on their first question for being berating (i.e. non-helpful). If it happens to be made by a user who votes-to-close the question, then it cancels out the fact the comment was made thereby increasing the tracked percent above.

I already know that this problem has been pointed out before (even the chosen answer seems passive aggressive to me).

---- EDIT ----
Forget the above ideas - for reasons mentioned by others below, they will not work. Here is a new idea instead (very fair):

  • Rather than 6 votes being able to close a question, how about 10% of the daily users must have voted for it to be closed. (Laws being passed in Congress and Jury trials have even higher percent requirements)
Improve this question
16
  • 1
    Ah, so asking one to ask a good question is passive-aggressive? What isn't then?
    – M.A.R.
    Apr 22, 2015 at 13:58
  • NOOO! My account! But note: Downvotes in meta, other than quality, can mean disagreement with the proposal.
    – M.A.R.
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:00
  • 17
    Sure, let's ban, kick, and suspend everyone who try to preserve the quality.
    – Shadow Wizard Is Sad And Angry
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:05
  • MARamezani, Let me enlighten you: A new user believes 100% that his question is a good one. The proof it that they go through the process to sign-up for a new account, read how to post, click on this and that, etc. YOU should respect that and be "helpful".
    – user289362
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:06
  • 1
    @Shadow because you downvoted this question too fast, you need to be tracked from now on.
    – M.A.R.
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:06
  • @James exactly why? I always believe every post I post is a good post post.
    – M.A.R.
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:07
  • @MARamezani or get -10000 rep penalty.
    – Shadow Wizard Is Sad And Angry
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:07
  • 8
    I once reached 12 seconds per review and never leave a comment when I do so. Thanks for pointing out that it is unjust. I'll see if I can keep up with the incoming close reviews while not losing to much joy and time in moderating the crap thrown at us in certain tags.
    – rene
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:14
  • YES, a 12 second vote-to-close for a new user question is unjust. That's my point.
    – user289362
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:17
  • 2
    The votes were nothing personal. It sounds like this just isn't the sort of site you were looking for.
    – yellowantphil
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:23
  • 9
    @JamesGreiner so, exactly how long are we supposed to stare at a piece of crap before I can close it? Does the timeout reduce if i append a canned comment (such as a c/p of the close reason)?
    – John Dvorak
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:31
  • 3
    @JamesGreiner Your first two bullet points are making false claims. The speed of the vote is unrelated to its justness. A lack of commenting in no way indicates passive-aggressive behavior; it's a moderation action, and you even see who closed your question once it's closed.
    – TylerH
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:40
  • Would you force them to also answer a question they don't have interest on answering?
    – Braiam
    Apr 22, 2015 at 14:45
  • 3
    10% of the eligible population does not sit on each Jury, neither are 10% of the US population in Congress.
    – Robert Longson
    Apr 22, 2015 at 17:10
  • It needs 5 votes, btw.
    – rene
    Apr 22, 2015 at 17:10

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
21

I'm one of the users on Stack Overflow that close votes a lot of questions, mainly by handling reviews that appear in the Close Vote Queue. As I have been doing that for a while now I have become pretty effective.

If you're looking at the Stack Exchange Network, the site model is clear: high quality questions and answers. That is all; nothing more nothing less. It's all about quality, and not just quality; high quality.

That characteristic of the posts found on the various sites attracts a lot of users, on Stack Overflow maybe more than we can handle. Those users recognize that the SE sites and communities are different from other sites found around the internet, but they sometimes fail to understand the reason why the SE sites come first in Google searches.

And that is where the quality mechanisms meet the posts, and that affects new users more than the more seasoned members of each community. If we forget the values expressed in the Help Center and the quality filters present, posts are moderated by the community with various tools. Close voting/flagging is one of them, down- (or up-) voting is another one among leaving comments.

I moderate posts, not people. For me, it doesn't matter if you're low rep or high rep. The point is that I try to signal as quickly as possible to the community and the OP that the post needs attention.

Your feature request seems to focus on reducing the speed in which this moderation can take place. As I said in a comment, in ideal settings, I make very quick decisions on posts. That is not something I should be punished for; I feel that it is needed for the posts to keep up with our quality standards, the same ones that attracted you to the SE sites. Waiting too long will do more harm. I might even propose a counter feature request: any user with the privileges that views a low quality, in need of moderation posts, and does nothing should be flagged.

I leave no comments when I cast a close vote for the following reason: if the post gets closed, the system adds a notice explaining what is wrong and needs to be improved. My close vote, however, might be wrong. If I leave a comment, more users will notice and follow my vote instead of making their own moderation judgment. Requiring comments is not wise (and based on your rule, I would have been suspended a long time ago).

If you receive comments, they are meant for you to get clarification about your post (yes, again, it is not about you at all; we are not a social-network). What is perfectly clear for you might be confusing for others. Almost all users are here to help. However, if you find comments berating you or that are inappropriate, either say so in a comment or flag the comment so a moderator can help out.

I understand it is not a great experience if you feel mistreated. The feature requests you are proposing will not help, I'm afraid, in raising the post quality for new users. In some cases, I might even see how it could hurt new users. I leave a down-vote on your feature request to convey that message.

In your latest edit, you propose to increase the number of close voters needed to close a question. Just remember that it is not a dead-end if a question is closed. If you edit and improve it, as indicated by the given close reason, your question will go to the re-open queue, where it can be re-opened with five votes. Keeping questions that need work from the OP open for too long is not advertising correct behavior to the OP, and might give other visitors the idea that they can ask similar questions (in quality, that is), as well.

Nevertheless, I hope you will reconsider, and give yourself and the communities here a little bit more time to get used to each other. We are different, that is basically it.

Improve this answer
2
  • Please show me where is all about "quality" where is the word "quality": math.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
    – user289362
    Apr 22, 2015 at 16:36
  • 5
    It is indirectly in the tour Questions that need improvement may be closed until someone fixes them.
    – rene
    Apr 22, 2015 at 16:38
12
  • Track how many seconds it takes for a user to click to read the question and then click to vote-to-close it. The quicker the close vote, the more unjust the action.

Or the quicker the close vote, the more crap the question. There is plenty of poor content that I don't even need to read completely to know it's not going to be a fit for the site, or is poor at best. I will however read until the end, but even that will in most cases not take me more than a few seconds.

So no, you can't judge an action to be "unjust" based on time.

  • Track if the user who votes-to-close at least wrote a helpful comment. The higher the percent of time no comment was made, the more likely the user is passive aggressive.

Close votes come with a default explanation. And in addition to that there is plenty of material available on all sites regarding what makes a good question and what kind of question would be considered poor or inappropriate. In most cases you as a user don't need to add anything to that. If you have something more to say, by all means go ahead. But the absence of a comment does not indicate anything bad has taken place.

  • Allow new users to flag any comments on their first question for being berating (i.e. non-helpful). If it happens to be made by a user who votes-to-close the question, then it cancels out the fact the comment was made thereby increasing the tracked percent above.

This disregards that plenty of new users just want to ask their question and couldn't care less about the site, or simply don't know what it is all about. And yes, that unfortunately is the case despite the amount of information we shove into their faces before they can ask a question. And even if an unhelpful/berating comment is left, it can already be flagged.

So overall I don't think you're solving anything here, if there is anything to solve at all.

Improve this answer
4
  • Okay, I'll admit you make very valid points. But all of them are slanted toward being a regular user. My ideas were just quickly written. I am just giving you an account of my newbie experience.
    – user289362
    Apr 22, 2015 at 16:50
  • 4
    So bottom line is "I don't like getting my questions closed"? If so, ask better questions, or improve the closed ones so they can get reopened. There is nothing malicious here.
    – Bart
    Apr 22, 2015 at 16:52
  • Was the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld malicious?
    – user289362
    Apr 22, 2015 at 17:05
  • 1
    Given that he seemed to act somewhat arbitrarily, sure. We in general don't however. There's a clear specification of what's on and off-topic. If you find it hard to understand the limits there, feel free to ask on a site-specific meta for clarification. We're glad to help.
    – Bart
    Apr 22, 2015 at 18:45
6

This is not a good idea, for a number of reasons:

  1. There are currently 7,937 questions in the Stack Overflow Close Votes review queue. Requiring those who give their time ploughing through this queue to comment every time they agree with a close vote would not help to keep it at a manageable size.

  2. Some questions are so bad that it's obvious within a couple of seconds that they should be closed.

  3. Closing (usually) requires five votes. Why should the comments be cluttered with "me too" comments from all but the first close-voter?

Improve this answer
1
  • Well in term so of number three, most people upvote the first comment mentioning why he or she voted to close...
    – Anthony Pham
    Apr 22, 2015 at 21:08
4

Track how many seconds it takes for a user to click to read the question and then click to vote-to-close it.

And if done quickly, award them a badge..? More rep..?
Because they're not only flagging a question which was bad and needed closing, but they did it quickly to stop it getting undeserved answers.

However, you said:

The quicker the close vote, the more unjust the action.

So you are saying:

fast flag time = mistakes or malicious intent

This is a very poor assumption to make, given the many possible parameters which could be involved. And even walking down the path of blind assumption for a second, is this even a problem?

  1. How many users a day are maliciously flagging, without reviewing the question fully first?
  2. Why would those malicious flags get passed, given there needs to be 3/5/etc other users to vote who would surely vote against?
  3. Have you considered that the site is full of computer techies who are lightening fast using the mouse and keyboard, and are familiar with the site and can very quickly ascertain if a question is bad or not?

Track if the user who votes-to-close at least wrote a helpful comment

  1. Not feasible to write a script to identify a "helpful" comment
  2. Commenting to declare/explain close votes and flags is pointless as these things are not an outcome themselves and happen behind the scenes in review queues. If any outcome occurs see 3:
  3. If question is put on-hold/closed, the resulting message explains why. So previous comments are "obsolete/pointless" making them "unhelpful".

With your first two suggestions, you are punishing users who have the ability to accurately flag questions quickly, and also slowing them down by forcing them to comment too.

People will just stop flagging because it's too arduous and judgmental to flag or vote to close.
People will start to complain about the comments being left, etc, etc
None of this is what we want to happen.

The higher the percent of time no comment was made, the more likely the user is passive aggressive.

Or,

  1. User does not know what to write in a comment
  2. User thinks it's pointless
  3. User is shy, but trying to help the site silently (flag)
  4. Their boss called them away
  5. There is a fire
  6. Their computer/browser crashed
  7. Nagios started showing red stuff
  8. They spilled their tea/coffee over their desk
  9. They... thousands of other possibilities...

By simply "not doing something" does not therefore make you "passive aggressive".
What is wrong with us deciding to not comment, without being labelled as bad or negative in some way?

Rather than 6 votes being able to close a question, how about 10% of the daily users must have voted for it to be closed.

What are "daily users"? Users who've logged in?

"10%" carries no bearing or accuracy of a representative of anything at all in this scenario.

What about users included in that 10% who:

  1. Never flag
  2. Don't know how to flag
  3. Are afraid of flagging
  4. Do not visit the question people are trying to close
  5. More stuff

This is a bad idea because we'd end up with barely any questions getting closed, and as it is now many poor and bad questions get answers because it takes too long to get them closed.
Slowing the process down even further is not going to be welcomed at all.

(Laws being passed in Congress and Jury trials have even higher percent requirements)

This, I, but... This is an entirely different scenario, with completely different requirements altogether.

So on your comparison of law:
If I phone the police/cops, they respond to my call, and I do not need 3 other people to also call up and confirm I'm being bludgeoned to death by a gang of haddock-wielding nutters.
Should Stack therefore adopt the same policy?

1 vote to close...?

I commend your efforts if you are genuinely trying to improve Stack Exchange in some way.
But it seems you are trying to resolve a problem which simply does not exist.

And you are trying to resolve it with ideas that are not very well thought out.

You'd be better off forgetting this question here exists, and starting a discussion stating:

  1. The problem, and description of what you think is wrong
  2. Why you think it is wrong
  3. Proof/evidence/links/observations
  4. Possibly a hint of what could be done to resolve it

Then let others discuss and decide first if there is a problem, and if so discussions will naturally return ideas for a potential resolve.

Improve this answer
1
  • In addition to the eventual closure leaving a clear message, there might also already be a comment indicating what is wrong with the question, and I just happen to agree with the comment that's already there. So I should be punished in some way because I decided not to leave a redundant comment?
    – Aaron Bertrand Staff
    Apr 22, 2015 at 20:17