Now, there's nothing wrong with Go (other than the fact that I don't think I'll be bothering to learn it anytime soon), but it's providing us with a nice test drive of what will happen to the StackOverflow system when a new language/tool/framework/platform/whatever is released and the site is suddenly flooded with questions about it.

There are some good questions about Go, but there are also some others that are at least a little questionable. In this particular case, the community has decided that the question is "not a real question." This is clearly incorrect - there's a question mark, and it would be a valid question for [insert your favorite language here], but it's not a valid Go question at this time, since the language has been around for 48 hours. In fact, looking at the list of reasons to vote to close, none of them match:

  • Exact Duplicate - Nope, there's no other question like this for the Go language yet.
  • Not Programming Related - Nope, Go is clearly a programming language.
  • Subjective and Argumentative - I'm not a fan of "list some libraries/frameworks for me"-type questions, but it's certainly not subjective or argumentative. Frameworks can be discussed and compared in terms of what they offer without a question being subjective or argumentative.
  • Not a Real Question - Nope, it's a question.
  • Blatantly Offensive - I won't even waste my time explaining why this isn't a valid close reason for this question.
  • No Longer Relevant - This might be true for a question about using Go (or anything) on punch cards, or using an outdated API from a dead library in Go, but it's not relevant here.
  • Too Localized - This is the only one I could really buy, but even this doesn't quite seem right (possibly since so few questions get closed for this reason).
  • Belongs on meta.stackoverflow.com / serverfault.com / superuser.com - Nope, it's obviously programming related.
  • Spam - Unless the OP was trolling (as (sarcastically?) suggested in a comment), this is obviously not the case.

So it seems that we might have a valid reason to add a closed as not yet relevant reason. Do you think we might need this reason, or do you think the current set of close reasons can handle a few oddball Go (and other languages to be released in the future) questions like this? Or do you think that this is such a rare case as to not merit messing with the system?

6 Answers 6


Personally, I see many of these as "not a real question." The definition of that is "not answerable." That's about the closest. I would like something like "not relevant yet," but really the reason should probably be "severely offtopic or misguided."

  • 1
    "Severly offtopic or misguided" sounds like "Misinformed," which (to me) sounds like it should be answered to combat the misinformation, rather than closed and vehemently downvoted. Nov 14, 2009 at 2:29
  • 4
    I can see that ... But then again, there are some levels of misinformation that just can't be fixed.
    – John Rudy
    Nov 14, 2009 at 2:52

You must be a programmer, if you want a close reason for this edge case. :)

I'd prefer Being noise as close reason. It's such nicely vague, you can flag everything with it...

  • I would consider "being noise" to be essentially the same as "spam." Nov 15, 2009 at 0:52
  • 1
    You said it is obviously not spam. So how could they be the same? Or do you not think, that it could be flagged "being noise"? BTW spam is noisy, but that does not mean that noise is spam. Nov 15, 2009 at 9:39
  • I don't consider it noise because noise implies it's not a valid question for SO. This question isn't a valid question for SO yet, so I'm hesitant to call it noise. However, "being noise" would be a nice way to streamline the close vote list: it could easily encompass some less-used categories like "spam" and "too localized" in a single, more useful category. Nov 16, 2009 at 4:07

"Can you recommend..." was its deathknell. That's the kind of slug you seed a discussion with.

It's missing the "subjective" tag there as well. Maybe it would have fared better if it was community-wiki.

Go was just squatted out of the birthing canal, and yet this question is already looking for a mature MVC based on the language.

Non-question goes on to not give more details or specs of what they want or need and then reminds them that this is some kind of discussion thing, "What Go MVC web frameworks do you recommend?"

  • 2
    There's no way that would have even survived as CW. Like I said in my comment, in a year or two the question might be valid, but now it's just batmunge insane. The thing that sickened me most about it was that, at my last check, there were four votes to reopen. What kind of lunacy is that?
    – John Rudy
    Nov 14, 2009 at 2:28
  • 1
    True, but they ask for frameworks that either exist or at least have some prayer of existing. :)
    – John Rudy
    Nov 14, 2009 at 2:53
  • @Cigars - Which is my point. The question isn't a bad question (as random claims), it's just too early to be answerable. Therefore, "not yet relevant" in my opinion. Nov 14, 2009 at 3:19
  • 2
    @ChangingMetaName: It is a bad question, as of today. Two years for now, it wouldn't be, and people could start answering. We could even point the inevitable duplicates to that original question. It sounds to me that the close reason you're asking for would more be along the lines of “idiotic”, but since that's offensive and highly subjective, it's best to let the community decide by voting (-53 as of time of writing). Nov 14, 2009 at 5:14
  • 2
    @Arthur - Considering how downvoted it is, if we want to answer it two years from now, we'd be better off deleting it and re-asking it when it's relevant. Nov 14, 2009 at 5:47
  • 2
    OK, even scarier. I wake up this morning to find that someone has cast the fifth vote to reopen. Oy.
    – John Rudy
    Nov 14, 2009 at 14:18
  • @Changing: right, I realized that after posting my comment. We should close the question (well, I can't, but it should really be closed). Nov 14, 2009 at 19:43

Sounds like trying to predict the future :)

New close reason: "Question asks to predict the future"

  • Asking for a list of frameworks isn't subjective, as that question suggests the appropriate response to that particular situation is. This is a different situation, and I would argue that it isn't subjective (or if it is, it's no more harmful than the pages of idential questions about other languages). Nov 14, 2009 at 4:14

Not to be the dissenter of the bunch, but I can actually kind of see that as a possibly relevant question. (For the record, I did not vote to reopen). Just because the language was just released to the public doesn't mean that Google couldn't have partnered with other companies to write frameworks off of it, or done it themselves. From a business standpoint, this would have actually been a smart move on Google's part, so it's really not outside the realm of possibility that there would be a Go framework created on day one of the launch.

Most other major organizations follow that approach. In order to make a product successful, you need a reason for people to need that product. You see this over and over again. Microsoft created .net to sell windows, Apple created the iPod to get people to use iTunes and their online store. Based on these other examples, it is entirely possible that there is something Google has started to promote that most of us just haven't heard of. Now honestly, I don't think this is the case, and that also makes me wonder if Google really backs the success of the Go language, but the question is definitely relevant right now, even if that answer is "No there isn't a framework available."

So the answer to your question is, no, I don't think we need a new status. Just because it's not yet relevant to the masses, doesn't mean that it's not relevant at all. That and questions that stay open and aren't relevant at this point in time can be answered later. Closing valid questions stops the question from being answered, which ultimately hurts SO.

  • 3
    @Kevin: if Google had partnered with other companies to launch something Go-related on the day the language was released, there would have been at least some publicity for it on the Go site, wouldn't it? The implementers wouldn't have chosen to let people find it by chance (or that would have been the worst marketing campaign of all times). Now I don't seem to see anything of the kind, while the Go site has quite a nice page with simple examples of Go code. Nov 14, 2009 at 20:06
  • It's fair to dissent, and I see your point, but I still disagree.
    – John Rudy
    Nov 14, 2009 at 20:30
  • @Author not necessarily. Just because Google didn't announce it on their front page, doesn't mean that it doesn't exists. Rarely does Google release something to the public all at once, and they may have partnered with 3rd parties to build the go frameworks. Having someone else tout your product as usable it 100 times more believable than you touting your product as usable. By not getting invovled in marketing the framework it shows that someone other than Google can successfully use it at least on the surface. Nov 14, 2009 at 21:29
  • @Author MS does this all the time. With the .net framework the gold partners were building frameworks with it months before it was released. Did MS do any advertising of this, not at all. They left that to their consulting firms which partnered with them. Did MS help build them, absolutely, but they didn't advertise that, because it look 1000 times better for the consulting firms to build something and say "Hey look what we did with this!" That gives the impression that it's really possible to build something without ms getting involved. This could be the exact same scenario with Go. Nov 14, 2009 at 21:32
  • @Kevin: It seems like we're going in circles here. Let's agree to disagree. And my name is Arthur, by the way (seriously, did you do as much reading as you do write?) Nov 16, 2009 at 9:30

An appropriate close reason might be Silly Question.

You must log in to answer this question.

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