The question Is it a good practice to put public profile such as Professional or Social Networking site links in your resume? got closed as not constructive

I've often wondered if putting things like blog links, LinkedIn, or StackOverflow profiles on a resume was a good idea or not, and thought the question was good for the site. In addition, I think the accepted answer is a good answer that covers different types of profiles and situations.

It could probably use some edits to clean up the question, however would simply cleaning up the wording get it reopened? If not, what can be done to the question to get it reopened?


Edited question in an attempt to bring it back on-topic for the site. If the edit is not enough to get it re-opened, please let me know what more we need to do.

  • Rachel, by the time i saw this the question is already in a good edited shape. I tried giving first cut in editing but the successive editing were quite great. The question now looks really good and useful. Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 19:09
  • Keep up the good work! You are keeping up on the word that we must attempt to salvage every question when we find it misfit. This is a great (second) example! Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 19:10

2 Answers 2


I was considering editing the question to ask something like "How do I determine what URLs I should include on my resume?" which would produce an answer like this one but hopefully with more specific examples. Yes, the short answer is "whatever adds value* but that determination of value differs from industry to industry and purpose to purpose, so answers about how to determine would be useful.

  • 1
    I was thinking about an edit along the same lines, but I wanted to be sure that was the only problem with the question and that it would be OK to reopen afterwards
    – Rachel
    Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 16:06

"Is it a good practice to" screams bad subjective.

The question would be best phased as:

I want to put my linked in and SE profile on my resume. My resume is generally following the X format. Where would the most effective place to put those links using that format?

That is practical and answerable. It is somewhat localized but if it is a general format then someone else might be able to use that.

I suspect if someone went through the process of asking the question that way they would no longer need to ask the question. But if they do, then we can answer it.

  • But the question isn't "where should I add these links to my resume?", it's "should I add these links to my resume?"
    – Rachel
    Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 16:05
  • @Rachel - No that is what the question should be. The question is "I want to know if it's a good practice to do the same." - The wording matters. The "In what cases, recruiters will appreciate it? In what case this becomes detrimental?" is not constructive and needs to go. It is calling for speculation and anecdotes. Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 16:09
  • 4
    @Chad Actually, whether or not including or not including a certain section of information for purposes of advancing through the hiring sequence is very much on-topic. If it's not, then now I don't know what this site is about.
    – jcmeloni
    Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 17:12
  • @jcmeloni - That is not the question asked though. Should "I" Put it on is different than is it a good general practice. Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 17:58
  • 1
    @Chad I agree with that. So, editing the question to make it a general question is not what we're trying to do?
    – jcmeloni
    Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 19:38
  • @jcmeloni - If making it more general helps open the question up with out changing the question or making it nonconstructive then sure. But just going more general for the sake of being more general then no. Sometimes a more focused approach is right. Commented Apr 25, 2012 at 21:43
  • 1
    @jcmeloni Making a question applicable to a wider audience is good. Cannibalizing a question to be something quite different than the OP meant is not, remember when editing we must always respect the original author, even if that means that the question should stay closed. Changing a question too much means we probably won't be able to provide clarifications on it, we can change wording, fix syntax and grammar but changing intent is always icky. Salvaging for salvaging's sake is not the way to go.
    – yannis
    Commented Apr 27, 2012 at 6:10
  • @jcmeloni (cont...) When there's a great question hidden in a poor question, we should prompt the OP and guide them on how they should fix it. Grammar, spelling, formatting we can all do, without any second thought, but the OP should always be included when we change the focus, we can close and comment or ping them in chat, or even bring the question on Meta. It doesn't matter which, what matters is that we can't go gung ho and take full ownership of the question. And it's always a bit more complicated when there are already answers, then you have to think whether you should invalidate them.
    – yannis
    Commented Apr 27, 2012 at 6:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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