-22

To broadly paint my understanding, Stack Overflow doesn't want a reputation of more frivolous open questions and emotional debate. But it also wants to foster use and value. These are at odds whenever a question is closed due to being open-ended or prone to opinion and debate, particularly when it's about the pros and cons of software (sure - these things can be heavily opinion-based, but opinions are just baby facts trying to grow).

I suggest that when such questions are closed, that they be frozen (as normal) and cloned into a separate environment where answers can continue to be submitted and commented on. In order to lower the stakes (relieve pressure that can lead to argumentative responses and mistakes in human reasoning), it came to me that this could be a place where reputation points are not registered. Or where some other incentive structure is in place to dissuade uncharitable conversation.

Questions that are closed are often the most interesting and it's a great shame they're not more fruitful places. Don't kill those little baby facts before they get a chance!

Improve this question
7
  • That was tried already (the original programmers site), it didn't work.
    – Robert Longson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:24
  • @RobertLongson Thanks for feedback. What about it failed? Do you have a link for that request or its revocation?
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:27
  • @Chenmunka Moderation tools are separate from reputation points - so would still exist?
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:29
  • I mean, I guess votes could still exist (and hide posts at certain thresholds) but just not impact a user's rep score.
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:31
  • 1
    meta.stackexchange.com/questions/167516/…
    – Robert Longson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:34
  • @RobertLongson That's really interesting. Disappointing, but interesting. Although something designed for one purpose getting two types of usage doesn't suggest you should destroy that thing; it suggests a demand for two separate things.
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 11:45
  • see also: We could use better management of popular, but “bad” questions
    – gnat
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:15

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

I suggest that when such questions are closed, that they be frozen (as normal) and cloned into a separate environment where answers can continue to be submitted and commented on.

You are essentially suggesting a work around to on-hold questions, but they are on hold because there is some problem and so shouldn't be answered - in any format or "place".

This is not how Stack Overflow works, or any Stack Exchange site.

this could be a place where reputation points are not registered.

This is not how Stack Overflow works, or any Stack Exchange site. They work because of reputation and votes etc.

Or where some other incentive structure is in place to dissuade uncharitable conversation.

We already have this, the very thing you want to work around - "on-hold/closed".

Like forums and other such sites, Stack Exchange sites have a specific format. Forums allow chatter to get answers (back and forth), Stack Exchange sites do not, the question has to be answerable and relatively decent quality. And so you are asking to break the very format of the Stack Exchange sites, and they work, and are arguably better that forums and others sites, because of the unique format it has.

Mainly that we close questions which are not fit for the site to ensure on topic questions which are answerable and decent quality so it helps more than just the question asker. Which you are asking to break/change/remove etc.

Let's not make a "place" where we allow low quality questions for the sake of it - search Google for "forum" and you will have tens of thousands of alternatives to suit your needs when Stack Exchange does not.

With that in mind, what about this:

  1. Place the question "on-hold" with a message informing the question asking what's wrong with their question
  2. Allow them to edit their question to "fix" it
  3. If a closed question is edited, allow it to be pushed into the re-open queue for site users to review and determine if it has been "fixed"
  4. If reviewers re-open it, then the question can be answered just like any other non-closed question

That sounds pretty simple and fair, in fact a perfect scenario whereby we stop answers on off-topic question but also allow users to fix their questions. And also automatically get them reviewed for their being potential re-opening without the OP having to do anything but edit and fix.

Hang on, we already have that... ;)

Questions that are closed are often the most interesting and it's a great shame they're not more fruitful places

I agree that sometimes a closed question could be interesting, but we're not really here for interesting - that's just a nice side-effect which sometimes happens.
We're here to provide and obtain answers to questions, and if the question does not fit within the scope of the site (off-topic) then it does not belong here, not matter how fun; interesting' amazing; whatever; it may be.

Also, can you show some examples? There are a lot of questions which are essentially "off-topic" but are just locked.

Summary

  • People will post "crap" and low quality content because we allow it, as we have an official "place" we move it to. This is not a good way to dissuade poor and off-topic content, and it would require moderating and heavy review queues. I do not want to review "crap" and say "allow this to go to [place] so this lazy user can get answers"
  • This "place" will essentially be a low quality dumping ground - do you really expect quality answers to be had? The point of asking a decent and on-topic question is you get a potential for decent answers
  • Do we do away with "on-hold" and instead just move off-topic stuff to your new "place"? What if the question is edited and improved? Is it forever doomed to the dumping ground for low quality stuff?
  • In this "place", what if something is a dupe, or even so bad it's "off topic" for this "place"? Does it remain, or do we have "on-hold/dupe/closed" in this new "place"?

I have more questions which point to major issues, but I think the above shows you that this just wouldn't work because you are proposing something which is not how Stack Exchange works.
You are essentially stating:

Stack Overflow should have a forum...

And no to that!

Improve this answer
7
  • This makes sense - although leaves unsolved the problem of destroying educational answers on perspectives of programmers' preferences for the sake of never-ever-getting-bad-content. I'm not gonna descend into a discussion on "what Stack Overflow is about" because frankly I don't care anywhere near as much as everyone's tone suggests I should - SO should be useful, not a religion. Programmers being prevented from sharing experience-informed impressions (which they use constantly while coding): that is not useful. Code innovations come out of philosophy.
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 13:41
  • "SO should be useful" and that is the point of closing questions which are not in the scope or format of the site - off-topic. There has to be some guidelines and format to follow, otherwise we'd have no basis of what the site is about or how it should work or be moderated etc. If you see questions which are very much "useful" and on-topic but are closed, then vote to re-open, or perhaps list a few in your question here as examples.
    – James
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 13:53
  • So you're trying to save "useful" content? Your question here comes across as wanting to dump "off-topic" questions somewhere and not be closed, but if they are "off-topic" then there is a reason for it. If there is a problem with questions being closed when they shouldn't be then raise this issue. If you have an idea for improvement then voice it. But, just saying something like "the questions we close because they do not fit on the site should be shoe-horned to fit on the site" is not going to work nor be popular.
    – James
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 13:57
  • I assume you're using "off-topic" to mean "not-Q&A-format", because the "open-ended or prone to opinion and debate" questions I speak of are indeed typically "on" the "topic" of programming. The problem of good questions being closed is endemic enough that a structural change like this seems useful. If closed questions are so bad why does SO save them? To signal that it doesn't approve, while tacitly approving (because they're often insightful). They amass views because they in fact often aggregate lots of interesting perspectives.
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:28
  • "If closed questions are so bad why does SO save them" As I linked in my post - see here to answer that: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/126587/…
    – James
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:35
  • Otherwise, some examples of questions you feel shouldn't be closed would be good (or, would benefit the site remaining open but are currently closed etc).
    – James
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:36
  • I'm just highlighting the cognitive dissonance involved with letting people read something that you've marked as "not worth reading". SO tacitly recognizes that closed questions can inspire useful content - I'm suggesting a formal mechanism where those closed questions can be allowed to have continued value, rather than be stunted by overzealous mods.
    – Oli Beatson
    Commented Sep 4, 2015 at 14:47

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