What does “Not Constructive” Mean? [closed]

Question

closed as not constructive by Rarity♦ 1 hour ago

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

Can somebody please tell me why the following questions weren't closed as 'Not Constructive'?

• Is it acceptable to ask who recommended me?
• Send “thank you” email after phone interview?
• Responding to thank-you notes from interviewees
• Is it good idea to shorten URLs in a CV?
• How should I phrase an email and/or conversation that I need to back out of an interview?

---

• None of these questions could quite possibly be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise.
• All of these questions solicited debate, polling, and extended discussion.

---

EDIT: At the risk of being drowned out by a sidebar discussion, I don't understand how debating the efficacy of a 'Thank You' note could possibly be construed as 'Constructive'.

Answer 1

The "not constructive" close reason is intended to separate questions we tend to refer to as "good subjective" from "bad subjective".

Here on Workplace Stack Exchange we don't immediately shy away from any question that might have a subjective undertone to it, but what's important is that questions and answers still focus on solving problems instead of just sharing opinions or contributing to a discussion.

I've looked through the five example questions you gave and I see they are in a pretty decent shape. Each question asks about a specific work-related situation that can be addressed, and answers provide various viewpoints (although sometimes they overlap, which is fine) supported by further explanation and personal experience.

By contrast, your question is aimed at having a discussion. It doesn't have an answer that can be backed up by someone's work experience:

Why didn't anyone inform law enforcement about these crimes?

My Questions:

• Did Organizational Anti-Patterns or Groupthink Foster the Penn State Cover-Up?
• Or was this simply a case of 'Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely'?

Who knows? Short of interviewing the people involved and trusting that they're telling the truth, all we can offer here are guesses and speculations - the cornerstones of debate, arguments, and discussion.

For questions of this type other sites like Quora are a better choice than Stack Exchange.

Answer 2

First, you already know the answer to the question in the title. You were told why your question was not constructive in Too Localized?? Are you kidding me?. You were told why multiple times by multiple people, you were also told why in the comments on your question. You have been told why by all three moderators and two non-moderator users.

If you honestly do not understand why your question was closed after all of that, perhaps you should find another site which has rules you can properly understand.

Second, you haven't actually picked example "Not Constructive" questions by any definition. You've clearly just gone to jcmeloni's profile and picked the top 5 voted answers. You did this because she was the one who originally closed your question.

You didn't even pretend to link directly to the example questions. One of them doesn't even have any comments on it and only a single answer; you clearly didn't even read them before claiming "these ended up in discussion". If you have a grudge against another user of the site keep it to yourself. I don't care if they're a moderator or another user, you will not harass another member of this site.

We have a strict be nice policy. We give you a little leeway to be upset when your question is closed and we do all we can to explain our policies, what was wrong with your question, how the site works. We've done that.

This is a question and answer site with explicit etiquette and post quality rules. If you can not be polite and you can not follow the post rules you will be suspended. Discussion on this site, even on Meta, is expected to be constructive.