I'm not here to get the question closed and even hesitated to ask this question here. I would readily accept that my interpretation of "not constructive" is too strict. But is it?
In my opinion a very interesting question based on its subject matter and well written as well.
Primarily because he didn't just post the title and that last section, he ...
I think there are two different questions of note:
1. Is this question, or more pointedly, its answers, helping or hurting users of the internet?
And it's pretty clearly helping. It contains both, "if you HAD to do it the way you asked, here's how," and "actually, you shouldn't do it that way at all. You should just do this".
2. Does this question ...
Questions that are nothing more than a request for external resources don't really fit the Q&A philosophy and format of the site:
Resources get outdated,
Links tend to go stale,
People tend to post and/or upvote their favourite resources, instead of the useful ones1,
Spammers love those questions.
And more importantly, you are not presenting us with a ...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... "Not Constructive"? Seriously?
Are you referring to,
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can ...
Largely assembling points from comments into a cohesive answer -
You do not seem to have read the about page or the FAQ. These include criteria for what makes a constructive question.
While in common usage "constructive" most closely means "useful," this community has subscribed to a much more restrictive definition, in a nutshell, for the reason that a ...
This is a question about pros and cons, features and drawbacks, strengths and weaknesses.
It's not chest beating subjective, but it is bullet list comparative. What's the difference? Nothing much other than delivery and fervour. And the only solution to that is a matrix of whatitgots and whatitdonts.
In bold essence, a Gorilla, a Shark and a Pterodactyl ...
I see it mostly used on questions which do not meet the quality standards we want to see in SE questions, even if the question might actually be constructive.
Then the problem isn't the name of the close reason, but its misapplication. Questions should be closed or flagged as "Not Constructive" when they aren't constructive questions that will lead to ...
I think that close reason is extremely appropriate for Meta. "not constructive" to me reads as "this isn't going anywhere". Maybe the description isn't 100% accurate, but the title "not constructive", and the general sentiment of that close reason, hits the nail on the head for quite a few closed posts here on Meta.
Any discussion on Meta should still be ...
As the existing answers illustrate, you have asked a "List Question". Those are never good. There isn't a single good answer to them. There are dozens. No one else who sees your question will have the same set of requirements, so it won't help.
Therefore, list questions are Not constructive
Stack Overflow is not a place to build lists of stuff. There are ...
It seems to me that now SO tries to only have questions that accept clear, definitive answers. Is this true?
Is there another place in the SO network for this kind of questions?
However, the question you actually ask:
what makes a REST API documentation stand out?
While subjective to a certain degree, is a better question because ...
It is a shopping question.
Now, shopping questions are considered unsuitable for Stack Overflow (and generally the Stack Exchange network), for the reasons outlined in the blog I have linked.
The naming of the close reason is not as good as it can be - think of it more as "not suitable for this site" than "not constructive".
A question gets closed as not-constructive for the following reasons:
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be ...
First, closing is a function of the question, and only the question. There are five reasons to close a question, and only five reasons to close a question. In this case, the question is not constructive.
The action of closing a question has no bearing on any answer, nor should it. The onus for fixing a closed question is on the person who asked it. Anyone ...
It's a discussion question, not a Q/A question. Just to dissect a bit:
There would have to be agreement on what a "modern language" is. That'd never happen.
The question implicitly presumes that having first class functions is a good thing; not sure everyone would agree.
Then, you're asking people to speculate on the intent of the implementors of various ...
a newcomer will ask a question that quickly gets downvoted and closed because they've failed to realise some nuance of how we like questions to be asked.
Sure, that can happen. Asking good questions is hard. And we uphold a quality standard to the best of our ability. Given that this is not your average forum (heck, it's not a forum) this might all be a bit ...
From Eric's answer:
But that's not really your question; your question is
are there any cases when it's necessary or useful to use a plain old Thread object instead of one of the above constructs?
In other words, the asker wasn't really asking what it appears he's asking. "Is X dead?" and "Why don't more folks use X?" are two common ...
No, people should not vote to close questions because they don't know the answer. That is actively harmful.
Regardless the particular example cited, I don't see anything wrong with that question. It's certainly not subjective, so I don't see how it can be not constructive.
The fact that the answer isn't "it's line X" (pretending for a moment that it isn't; ...
As you've stated, your question is quite confusing:
Why is there a discrepancy? Is it because of a lack of standards for web typography, or is this a bug that can be filed against one or the other browser?
Also, I apologize for making this a multi-part question, which seems to have caused some confusion. More important than how to work around this ...
Q&A is Hard, Let’s Go Shopping! is a blog post that discusses such questions and why they are not suitable for Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange in general.
The gist of it - there is no definitive answer as people answer with their subjective favorite. It becomes "discussiony" and in that respect not suitable. And answers become stale as new <product&...
Your question wasn't closed as being Off-Topic, it was closed as being Not Constructive. Specifically, you were asking for recommendations, and as the close reason states:
We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion
If people want ...
Is there no rule for grandfathering in early questions?
There is no such rule. When the standards change they are applied retroactively to all existing questions. Many such questions happen to go for long periods of time without being noticed, but if someone does notice them they are entirely within their rights to vote to close, or do whatever other ...
You're right! casperOne is totally wrong here, this should never have been closed as Not Constructive! ... It should have been closed as Off-Topic or Not A Real Question! Damn, I had to look up what Ontology is...
Let's play may favorite game: Check The FAQ
a specific programming problem -> No
a software algorithm -> Neee
software tools commonly used by ...
In short - you can't.
This kind of question is certainly a Gorilla vs Shark question and is completely unsuitable as a question on any SE site.
The only exception I can think of is the objective comparison of specific features.
This question is a great question and it's well researched.
But... In its current state, it doesn't belong on Stack Overflow.
It is asking why where no reasonable person can actually answer it. Unless the Chrome developers or Mozilla developers see fit to answer it, it's essentially unanwerable. I can provide my opinions as to why, but that'...
To quote Aarobot
[...] real questions have answers, not items or ideas or opinions.
I read your question on stackoverflow to be "I'm looking for consulting regarding a Java app I'm developing". That is a perfectly valid thing to want; it is not a good fit for SO's question and answer format.
In the early days of the site, this kind of questions were allowed. But now they are not. We try to clean up these youthful mistakes as much as possible, but there are a lot of them, so it will take time.
If you spot such a question, either cast a close vote, or flag it, and it will be handled eventually.
Please don't flag solely on simple keyword matches!
Not saying you're doing this, but that's how your question reads right now, and some folks do do this. And it can cause some serious grief. We have a perfectly good regex engine built into the system, we don't need a human-powered one.
Read the question, figure out what the author's actually looking for, ...
I don't believe your interpretation is incorrect. In making edits to a question, we do as much as we can to respect the author.
In this case, the author has laid out a very interesting piece on what they've done (in fact, the majority of the question is about that).
However, the actual question is "how can I improve on this"? That makes the question "not ...
this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.
Unless somebody actually did a study of the most common Scala mistakes, this is really asking "what do you think the most common mistakes are?" -- there's no right answer, it's just asking for a giant list of people's opinions. It also has 24 upvoted answers, ...
Since you're pinning it's closure on those that disagreed with you're previous MSO question, I'll explain my reasoning for vote closing it.
This question brings no value to SO because it would have been more constructive to do the search yourself. Google will automatically update based on recently found matches where any answers to your question would need ...