This question has received (at time of posting) 4 close votes with nearly no explanation.

I suspect it's because people are skimming, deciding it has nothing to do with The Workplace based on some background given in the question, and then immediately voting to close.

Given at least two of them are review vote closes I suspect this is the case.

This seems to happen frequently on this SE. I understand this question is not trivial to answer since it is heavily office-politics based (as well as generic because lots of people deal with situatinos like this in their workplace), but how can we avoid this sort of problem in the future?

  • Personally i found it quite hard to separate the underlying question from your geese example, which makes it hard to not focus on the geese, which people then vote down as off topic
    – user5305
    Jul 4 '13 at 21:09
  • I started reading it and my impression through the first 75% was that you were asking how to get rid of geese. I would suggest changing the title a bit so it's more like "How do I approach my boss about a controversial environmental issue" and less like "How do I ... get rid of geese?", and begin the post by making it clear you are asking how to approach your boss about a touchy subject, instead of beginning with your reasons for wanting geese gone.
    – Rachel
    Jul 6 '13 at 17:20

I reviewed and voted to close because the vast majority of the question is just background and setup. You're asking, essentially, how to politely and/or delicately handle an issue that could cause...conflicts.

However, you seem to be shoehorning this into an overly-specific and narrow scope.

Oh, and I did in fact read the whole question originally, including the edits made by rarity.

  • ... conflicts due to people having (imo) irrational defense of birds/animals/etc. I guess I see this as an issue a lot of people have to deal with at some point in their working career, probably not the software developers who frequent The Workplace however :\
    – enderland
    Jul 3 '13 at 22:41
  • 1
    @enderland, I wouldn't consider it to be so irrational. Where do all the animals go once humans have taken over everything? And what kind of impact will that have on our quality of life when whatever beneficial things these creatures do for the planet stops happening? With that said, this is a tough question. I think if you word it as "how can I address solving a workplace nuisance caused by protected species" maybe it might fit better.
    – jmort253
    Jul 4 '13 at 0:23
  • @jmort253 I guess my workforce demographic affects this. I would imagine 50% or more of those employed at my location have actively gone hunting in the past 5 years... so most people are more than willing to view geese as obnoxious/non desireable, etc. Plus I live in the USA in a region there are a toooooon of geese everywhere and it's a relatively common nuisance.
    – enderland
    Jul 4 '13 at 0:46
  • @enderland - My Dad is a hunter, but he's been involved for years in wildlife preservation. His focus is not so much about the individual animal as it is on the collective effects our presence here on Earth has on our environment.
    – jmort253
    Jul 4 '13 at 0:53
  • @jmort253 we could go back and forth on this, but interestingly, this is the sort of dialog I wanted to avoid being problematic, which is what prompted the question. Here on the Workplace, neither of us work for the other and it's completely alright to have different opinions. But my employer is going to have to make a decision somehow, and having a good framework for dealing with situations exactly like this - but within my workplace - would be ideal. Because people (such as yourself) have a completely different perspective :-)
    – enderland
    Jul 4 '13 at 0:58
  • @enderland - Back to my suggestion, try to edit to focus on how it's a workplace problem and not a personal problem. I don't think it's entirely off topic because workplaces do have to find ways to deal with these situations without it harming their reputation. For instance, the Century Inn near our office has been boycotted by us since they hate baby ducks. We now send business guests to the Comfort Inn instead. :)
    – jmort253
    Jul 4 '13 at 1:03
  • @jmort253 I updated the question a fair bit.
    – enderland
    Jul 4 '13 at 1:24
  • @jmort253: The back and forth comments about geese is exactly why I voted to close this question. I'm not sure why enderland gets special treatment with this and his April Fool's question. Both should be deleted. workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/10769/…
    – Jim G.
    Jul 4 '13 at 2:34
  • 2
    Hi @JimG., I don't think anyone's getting special treatment. 5 users voted to close, then some edits were made, and 5 more people voted to reopen. I agree it's an odd question for this site, but so far I don't see anything that would require any moderator actions. With that said, I did clean up some of the comments to help retain focus on the question and am hoping this helps.
    – jmort253
    Jul 4 '13 at 6:37
  • @jmort253: OK. Fair enough. But what about the April Fool's Day question? Are "joke" questions permissible? If so, count me in. I'll probably create a few throwaway accounts and create some funny ones! ;)
    – Jim G.
    Jul 4 '13 at 12:24
  • 1
    @JimG., it was really just one question posted that day, and it was April Fools Day. You're right that we don't really want those, and had it gotten out of hand a mod might have stepped in and removed it and any other joke posts. Also, everyone kept their "fun" to just that one thread, which helped contain it and keep the front page from looking like a sideshow. Sometimes there's several things to consider in situations like this, and that's one I looked at when deciding not to intervene. I hope you understand; it doesn't mean we want more of those. Hope this helps. :)
    – jmort253
    Jul 4 '13 at 15:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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