As much as I understand Stack Overflow is created to help developers. So as far as someone posts a "series" question on Stack Overflow, it's OK to keep it there.. Even if it's kind of vague, you can ask for refinements, edit the question, or ask for more context..

But suddenly now, Stack Overflow users are racing to (vote to) close as many questions as they can.

Eg: What are Vanilla objects in .NET? which was closed in less than 23 min though it was refined bit by bit as people "really" willing to answer and help others were asking for more context, but no.. people who are kind of stumbling their way through shouldn't be even allowed to ask questions!! Should they?

UPDATE: My point is: as far as I'm not (clearly) spamming, it's enough "punishment" to be ignored by answerers.. Not having an answer will make me update it to get them more eager to answer. Adding closure to the "punishment" makes it a hell of a job to ask a question. Did you notice how fast it was closed, but yet no one other than me voted for reopen after updating. People like to close, period!! It's not because they care about Stack Overflow getting spammed, they find it funny to shut people off.

And again I'm not talking specifically about this question (It's already answered, thanks to Jon Skeet), I'm feeling this generally all over Stack Overflow. It's become pretty common :)

  • 8
    Now - here's a wild accusation - did you downvote a random post for all people who voted to close your question?
    – Kobi
    Nov 7, 2010 at 9:14
  • 5
    Ah... that explained the random downvote on an old question of mine.
    – Yi Jiang
    Nov 7, 2010 at 9:57

4 Answers 4

  1. In cases the question is closed and then edited and improved it can be reopened - did you try to explain where you saw the term? Did it came up in a conversation? And, as the comments asked - is there a context?
  2. The original post said "What's a vanilla object? The question above says it all :D". It is considered extremely poor, so I voted to close. Sorry, but I stand behind it.
  3. It's Sunday. Try again tomorrow, and it will be closed in 3 minutes.

Questions aren't closed to "punish" the asker. They are closed to organize them, and indicate to other members that the question isn't suited, and keep different people from reading the same unanswerable question. I'll refer you to Mehrdad's great answer regarding community resources.

  • Commenters asked for a context & was planning for providing before it was closed.. I'll try to edit it again.. btw this not a one question thing.. I'm really talking about a "rising" cult in SO who just sit there to close other people questions check the discussion tag to get a felling about what I'm talking about.. the standard question now is "this is answered before" (without even providing a link, "down-voting", or "voting-to-close".. I know the importance of doing so.. but that overkill put spammers & ppl with real questions in the same category!! Nov 7, 2010 at 9:24
  • 7
    @Shady discussing every single hazy question, and waiting for people to come up with more detail (why not do that before hitting the submit button?) may work in a small programming community, but Stack Overflow has millions of unique visitors per month and an according influx of questions. Closing bad questions is simply self-defense. You always have your fair chance to flesh out your question with some more context. It has good chances of getting re-opened then
    – Pekka
    Nov 7, 2010 at 9:27
  • @Pekka: I've just updated it, with the exact article I was asking about. Vote for reopen if you "stand for my fair chance" :D Nov 7, 2010 at 9:34

What's a vanilla object?

UPDATE: It's not exactly P. language related (though I'd rather understand it in a .Net context).. Anyway, it's pretty much related to Dependency injection, DI containers, etc

This is the full text of your "question" and you are objecting to it being closed?

  • Anybody willing to help, will ask for providing more context like Skeet did.. but wasn't even given enough time to do so, thanks to the "voters to close" :) I shouldn't be "accused" for being "not self explanatory" enough. As long I'm not spamming, I deserve a fair chance.. Or that what I thought SO was for.. If we are all alpha-geeks, no one will need SO anyway :) Nov 7, 2010 at 9:19
  • 4
    @Shady - Closing a question doesn't stop people from commenting on it, or you from improving the question.
    – Kobi
    Nov 7, 2010 at 9:21
  • Updated it with the article I was talking about, hope you vote for reopen!! Let me know if "more context" can ever be provided :) Nov 7, 2010 at 9:31
  • 4
    @Shady: For future questions, it's important to anticipate what context people will need. Imagine you were reading the question yourself for the first time - would it be clear what was being asked?
    – Jon Skeet
    Nov 7, 2010 at 9:43
  • @Jon: My point is: as far as I'm not (clearly) spamming, it's enough "punishment" to be ignored by answerers.. Not having an answer will make me update it to get them more eager to answer.. Adding closure to the "punishment" makes it a hell of a job to ask a question.. Did you notice how fast it was closed, but yet no one other than me voted for reopen after updating.. People like to close, period!! It's not because they care about SO getting spammed, they find it funny to shut ppl off.. Nov 7, 2010 at 9:55
  • 1
  • 3
    @Shady: Well you brought up this specific question, which was very poorly asked. Poorly asked questions will generally get closed. Questions which have obviously had thought put into them generally won't get closed. If you don't want questions to be closed, put some effort into asking them well.
    – Jon Skeet
    Nov 7, 2010 at 10:04
  • 6
    @shady the honest truth is that answers are more important than questions. If you don't put effort into the question you are actively harming the site and wasting the time of the answerers who do the real work in our system. Therefore you need to take care and thoroughly research before asking. If you want permission to ask bad/sloppy questions, do so somewhere else on the internet. Nov 7, 2010 at 10:08
  • @Jon: You didn't answer my question: Why the extra punishment, isn't "not getting an answer" enough? (given I'm really desperate for an answer, ie not spammer) Nov 7, 2010 at 10:08
  • @Jeff: I totally agree.. by closing you're adding more dump questions (consequently dump or no good answers), but commenting asking for context, you make it more common to have GREAT answers (ie: everybody is happy) Nov 7, 2010 at 10:11
  • @Shady if you want to comment individually on every one of the thousands of dump questions that come in, and keep an eye on them to check whether they've been improved, go ahead :)
    – Pekka
    Nov 7, 2010 at 10:50
  • @Pekka: I'm not asking anybody in particular to to comment, plz read my word more carefully. All I'm asking is: giving ppl more time to have comments like Skeet's :).. They will get them if you didn't close it so soon.. Or not even having them at all (for a day or so) to know their question is too dump to be answered. It doesn't need any humans to do so.. Anyone desperate enough to post a question on a Q&A site probably crossed other "faster" options like googling it for eg.. Adding extra punishment of "closing" to "not having an answer" won't get anybody anywhere.. Nov 7, 2010 at 11:13
  • 3
    @Shady: we understand what you're asking and we already answered several times now: no. Nov 7, 2010 at 12:00
  • 8
    @Shady: Perhaps if people asking poor questions see that such questions get closed very quickly, they'll stop asking poor questions, and put the effort in without having to be pestered to provide context.
    – Jon Skeet
    Nov 7, 2010 at 12:18

I edited your question. Take a look, see what you think.

I've voted to re-open, and I hope it'll get re-opened with this edit.


The more effort you put in, the more effort you'll receive from the community.


Sifting through a pile of low quality questions is punishment for everyone else on SO. That is why we can close questions.

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