What about the introduction of a new feature which raises the requirement for moderators to close questions from experienced users? [closed]

Question

There were already similar questions back here in 2011 here in 2009 respectively. However, this issue must be raised again in slightly different manner because the SO platform functionality has changed a lot since then.

Online communities are formed by its users interacting in it. If a user is active for a long period of time, he obviously proved to be useful for that community as a participant. He has shown some experience in dealing with the community rules as well.

In the other hand, moderators have become more and more powerful on SO over time, now able to close questions as they like. This poses a problem and I have observed more and more that questions are being closed by "moderators", sometimes even down-voting and closing valid and non-duplicate questions without reason or reasoning. The effect of these changes have already been pointed out here on SO in a post from 2020. Other platforms have also identified this toxic behavior on Stack Overflow, like here or here on Quora, from which I quote (direct link might not be accessible):

I can't stand Stackoverflow [sic]. As someone who has a BS in Software Engineering, I can't tell you the number of times I've banged my head against the wall, and I ask a question from time to time. Like how do I get proper exchange of data from a java server to a c# clients readbytes. It's a harder question than it sounds, but you get some 15 year old kid closing your thread.

To me, most people have problems reading at a college level, so to discourage someone from programming, because the moderator wants to feel superior is deplorable.

Besides, learning is messy business. It looks messy, it feels messy, and it can be painful to look at. SO directly hurts education and severly [sic] limits knowledge, due to it's need for drawing within the lines. More laws and rules are not what people need.

If somebody who has invested hundreds if not thousands of hours into a collective group - in this case investing countless hours asking and answering questions -, and yet he or she is still being disrespectfully treated by "moderators", who in many cases are not only younger, but also much less experienced in the topic at hand, then a community has extreme sociological problems.

I can understand that this issue is not only an issue of Q&A platforms, but a problem of Western society as a whole. The work of elderly and experienced individuals is just not honored enough as it is in other parts of the world. Instead, most inhabitants in the Western hemisphere look up to people who got a lot of power, money or both. But knowledge and experience just doesn't seem to count much anymore in the fast-living, consumer-oriented Westernized societies.

That being said, I'd still suggest a new closing system for Stack Overflow, which:

1. disallows moderators to single-handedly close questions from experienced users. In addition to that,
2. moderators must write at least 40 individual letters as a reason for the closing of the question of an experienced users.

A kind of double standard in favor of the more experienced users of this platform. As a result, the fast closing process of questions shall be restricted to new users with either less than 1 to 2 years on their platform or less than 1'000 points. After reaching 1'000 points or the respective time span of 1-2 years, questions by users with at least 200 points shall not be closed easily by moderators, but only by several votes for closing as it was the case in the early days of SO, and in addition to that by writing at least 40 letters with the reasons.

I know that this might come too late since a lot of good people with 10k or more already left, but at least I tried to suggest building a more friendlier and more respectful Q&A platform.

ADDON:

Here's another source proving my point. A lot of people are sick that their good questions are being closed without any reasons. I wouldn't go as far as calling these moderator trolls as in the article, even though the behavior resembles trolling. Yet the crumbling community is probably the reason why the founders lost their trust and sold the company.

Answer 1

You—or the people whom you quote—are confusing experience in software development (or perhaps life in general?) with experience in Stack Overflow's Q&A system. They are not the same thing. Stack Overflow has very unique requirements and expectations, which are not always obvious to new users, regardless of how much expertise or experience they may have in the general field of software development.

I'm a moderator on Stack Overflow, I have no problems reading at a college level, I do not have a BS in Software Engineering, I am much older than 15 years of age, and I do not close questions in order to discourage people or feel superior.

Your post is filled with groundless attacks and fundamental confusion about how Stack Overflow works.

I have observed more and more that questions are being closed by "moderators", sometimes even down-voting and closing valid and non-duplicate questions without reason or reasoning.

You definitely haven't observed this, because it's impossible. It's impossible for anyone to close a question without giving a reason. The system forces a reason to be given. (That's not the case for downvotes, which never have a reason associated with them, but yet have nothing whatsoever to do with closing.)

Furthermore, you are confusing "moderators" with "users who have earned privileges to vote to close questions". While voting to close questions might be a moderation-style privilege, it does not make someone a moderator. Moderators are elected, and they always appear with a diamond after their user name. While moderators do sometimes close questions, this is not primarily the role of moderators.

If somebody who has invested hundreds if not thousands of hours into a collective group - in this case investing countless hours asking and answering questions -, and yet he or she is still being disrespectfully treated by "moderators", who in many cases are not only younger, but also much less experienced in the topic at hand, then a community has extreme sociological problems.

In fact, the people who have "invested hundreds if not thousands of hours into" the collective group that is Stack Overflow, by participating on the site, are the ones who have earned moderation privileges and thus are able to vote to close questions. So, the sociological model that you appear to envision is precisely the model that Stack Overflow uses. (And it isn't "disrespectful" to close someone's question.)

The work of elderly and experienced individuals is just not honored enough as it is in other parts of the world.

No, and it shouldn't be. Merit-based societies are better. Knowledge and experience count; years lived doesn't.

…the fast closing process of questions shall be restricted…

No, the fast closing process is a design feature. The faster the closure happens, the better. If the closure was incorrect and/or the question can be adjusted in accordance with the guidance given, then the question can be re-opened. The system provides the tools for this.

…at least I tried to suggest building a more friendlier and more respectful Q&A platform.

No, you didn't do anything of the sort. You just posted an ill-informed complaint, citing as "evidence" dozens of people who came before you who were equally ill-informed. There's nothing unfriendly or disrespectful about users voting to close a question that they think should be closed.

Answer 2

As an experienced user (more than 3k on multiple sites) and a moderator (on 3 sites), I've literally spent thousands of hours on the network in total and am probably something approaching a subject matter expert in how SE works.

So, a few points:

• Closures come with generic, bottled post notices that gives you pointers on why a question is closed. This essentially satisfies the "moderators must write at least 40 individual letters as a reason for the closing of the question of an experienced users." request.

• Any moderator closure can be overturned by community reopen votes so "disallows moderators to single-handedly close questions from experienced users." doesn't mean closed forever.

I can't stand Stackoverflow [sic]. As someone who has a BS in Software Engineering, I can't tell you the number of times I've banged my head against the wall, and I ask a question from time to time. Like how do I get proper exchange of data from a java server to a c# clients readbytes. It's a harder question than it sounds, but you get some 15 year old kid closing your thread.

At the risk of pedantry, the only teenagers I've known as mods have been excellent, and SE does (more recently) have a minimum age of 18 for mods. Does disagreeing with OP somehow indicate immaturity?

To me, most people have problems reading at a college level, so to discourage someone from programming, because the moderator wants to feel superior is deplorable.

OP is... uh... rather elitist here.

Besides, learning is messy business. It looks messy, it feels messy, and it can be painful to look at. SO directly hurts education and severly [sic] limits knowledge, due to it's need for drawing within the lines. More laws and rules are not what people need.

And yet this proposal is literally more rules. OP hasn't mentioned the closure reason - was it a dupe, what comments were made. OP also talks about threads and we don't do threads, which indicates an unfamiliarity with the site. Unlike Yahoo answers or Quora, we really want people to find quality here. SO's model means people are likely to find what they need. If its so bad there's alternatives. Maybe OP can find their answers on Quora.

We also have checks and balances.

I've been here a while. Back in the day, if you wanted something reopened, you made a case for it on meta. As a moderator, a good, constructive meta re-opening request is a thing of beauty. Make me weep with joy, I dare ya. We have reopening queues (and those involve regular user voting). To borrow a phrase from the Singapore government, we're not a case of ownself check oneself.

And honestly, to most people I don't think it really matters, ego-wise and usefulness-wise, who closed a post or why. On the other hand, If something 'obviously' needs closing, why wait? Closing isn't destructive.

Back before I was a moderator I'd asked a question about identifying a specific bit of equipment on a site I was and am intimately familiar with. It was closed and honestly? I'll survive. I did ask a mod about it politely and they were kind enough to reply. I can't find the meta post (or remember if it was meta or chat). TBF since then I've had 3 moderation roles, a certain degree of trust and electronic reams of posts since so... I guess that closure didn't drive me off.

And well, If I can stick around with hostile company management, rumors of one or more of my main site being shut down, and various things, some of which felt personal, I think I can manage a post being closed.