Not getting answers is the best signal of an unclear question.
No, it's indicative of a hard, maybe even not (yet) answerable question. Perhaps answering it would cause too much work and so no one wants to, but this may change.
Answers implies the question is clear enough.
No, because if it's unclear, people may just guess what the OP is asking and then ...
The close reason is now only shown to the question author and users with the ability to vote to close (usually unlocked at 3k rep).
I prefer the old way, so I brought this up when the change was first made and it’s status-declined for this reason:
Declined: there are legitimate reasons to show close reasons for the public view. However, we are not going ...
After intensely studying the system's patterns and analyzing information from various posts, I've found that the system selects the close reason to be displayed in this manner. Once a question reaches five close votes, the top-level selection phase decides which one of the five top-level close reasons to display, and then if the outcome of that phase is ...
Meta Stack Exchange, and any meta site of Stack Exchange for that matter, is meant for three main things:
Ask for new features
Discuss relevant things related to the site/network
If something doesn't qualify for one of the above, it's likely off topic.
In your specific case, Is there a habit to downvote new users by default? appears to be part ...
Even if the stacks don't deal with exact sciences, answers can (and should) still be backed up. You can back them up with experience (and reasoning). All answers should be backed up, although sometimes it may be implicit (e. g. work experience (TWP), being around people (IPS), being a parent (Parenting.SE)). If they are not or the advice is questionable, ...
Maybe the close reason in question can become a house-keeping function?
We have the roomba for that. Manual housekeeping functions rarely work well. Much like most folks - its more fun to do new things than clean up after yourself.
If a question is unclear - we want it on hold, discussed, clarified and improved before folks spend time answering it.
The answer is quite simple: everyone wants that question answered and SO has refused to do so in public. It could be reopened by the community in its present state, but it would be no more likely to get an official answer.
Closure doesn't always fit the reason exactly either. I wouldn't focus on the reasoning too much here. Tim Post wanted it closed. It's ...
Having looked at the script page, maybe we need to step back before closing the door on this "loophole".
First, it fills a potential useful need, especially with Teams, that's in the best traditions of SE. (And in this respect- do consider the possibility you might have ruined this for everyone who might have a legitimate use for this, assuming folks start ...
Good question, since the review guidance is kind of ambiguous at this point:
Leave Closed if this question is not appropriate for the site in its current state
Edit and Reopen to correct the issues with this question prior to reopening
Reopen if all issues with this question have been corrected, or it was incorrectly closed
Skip if you are not ...
I agree with this; I'm not a fan of how these got reworded.
On one hand, we always tell users that the exact close reason doesn't matter. In a lot of cases, the community knows that a question needs to be closed and there are multiple reasons.
On the other hand, there are users who read a lot into the post notice that gets attached to a closed post. We ...
I think that the Needs more focus (formerly Too Broad) close reason is extremely useful when assessing whether a question is asking multiple questions.
A question can be singular, clear and concise, irrespective of whether it is coarse-grained (big picture) or fine-grained but, unless it is very carefully worded, any "big picture" questions typically ...
What about adding "concise", that is, changing this:
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer.
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate, concise answer.
This should be fixed.
The problem was as I described in the comments: We were checking if you had the close/reopen privilege based on whether or not you could reopen that post. Since the returned question was locked, you couldn't reopen it, so you couldn't see the close reasons.
The logic has been simplified to only check if the user has the privilege.
As with any close reason, there are times where it is applied correctly and times where it is applied incorrectly. I agree with you that there are questions that are clear that still get closed, but we have a system in place to deal with that.
If you have 3,000 reputation you can cast a reopen vote. In addition to getting the question one fifth of the way ...
I don’t think this is a good idea. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds, (or thousands, depending in the size of the site) of Meta questions that have an answer somewhere in the Help Center. The whole point of Meta (besides setting and disputing policies) is to ask questions about how the site works and how it should work. Closing such questions seems ...
Don't we already have this tag? status-norepro
Even the excerpt is applicable:
Indicates that the site developers were not able to replicate the behavior reported.
but the tag wiki needs some work. I'm essentially proposing to re-purpose that tag to include obsolete bug reports. In both cases, the final status of the bug is 'we won't fix it, but not ...
This has been implemented at some point in time. The 'questions' object in the API has been extended with 'closed_details':
This type represents details about a question closure.
This type is mostly analogous "gray box" that appears below closed and on hold questions.
The box is yellow blue now:
but its possible to retrieve its contents by changing ...