Use of the word *triage* reflects an overwhelming  sense that there are too many poor quality posts coming through and there are not enough qualified folks to doctor them all.  **What if we were able to back up from the crisis and consider ways to avoid the problem instead**?

A search on "low quality posts" generates a plethora of discussions on how to handle and manage low quality posts.  A search in regard to "first posts" indicates that most effort has been focused on how to remedy the problem after the post has been made.  The present system of inducting new members to essentials/expectations of this very unique forum involves introductory pages and prompts that has evidently left us wanting.  Having experienced the present system as a new user and participated in it as an editor, I think that there is a better way.

My participation has mostly on BH-SE; thus, I leave it to others to discern how applicable this might be for other sites.  

**I suggest that first posts be not only prompted, but guided step by step in such a way that all the SE essentials are expected of the user in order to progress to the next step.**  It is easy to read through a page of site standards, then get enveloped in the Q&A and forget/neglect the standards.  Learning is much more effective when practiced immediately or acquired in the process.  In this way, new users know they are interacting with an established system of expectations and standards and choose to either comply or they simply do not progress. 

Low quality posts we frequently encounter on BH-SE that other sites may share in common:

**Questions:** 
 
1.  **Off topic**  
Thus a prompt would inform the user of the forums acceptable subject matter (perhaps this one prompt could be tailorable for each site or linkable to each sites defining elements)  
2.  **duplicates**   
Thus, for a first step one would type in the question then be prompted to scroll through existing questions to see if their question has been answered already, before their screen advances to where they can enter the body of their question.   
3. **failure to do research.**  
The next step would inform the user that there is an expectation that some research has already been done on the matter, and would instruct the user to post any research they have done.  If they do not post anything then there is no way to advance to the next step.  

**Answers:** 

1.  **Lack of a thesis**  
Step one would prompt the user to type in their thesis.  
2.  **Lack of main points/logic**  
Step two would prompt the user to enter any main points and connect the dots logically.  
3.  **Lack of credible sources**  
Step three would prompt the user to enter support for each main point with credible sources.  (If this is skipped there is no way to advance).  
4.  **Failure to answer the question.** This mostly occurs because people come in to share their information or they are responding/reacting to other answers rather than the question itself.  
Step four would prompt the user to go back an read the original question and see if they actually answered the question.  They would check the box (this directly answers the question or not progress).  

It may be that there are not enough shared reasons for low quality posts to make this work on a system level.  I have observed however, that within the general format/structure that all SE sites share, there seems to be room for each to enter their own site specific prompts and bullets.  Perhaps a step by step progression through first posts could be programmed into the whole system in such a way that the individual prompts for each step could be tailored by each site, or even so that each site could opt in or out of the procedure.  

In any case, **I recommend we consider ways to prevent the problem rather than ways to remedy it**.