What went wrong in this question : How can I tell if my shyness is an issue at a workplace??

I fail to understand why a question regarding the point where you draw the line between arrogance and confidence or rudeness and forthnightness or pushy-ness and gregariousness when talking to your colleagues or boss isn't in scope or doesn't have a concrete answer.

How are these not workplace issues? I don't have to worry about them elsewhere.

The commenter posted " This is a very large issue there's no concrete answers to, and as phrased this really isn't a Workplace exclusive issue, so it really isn't on topic here either; it's just not something workplace experts are going to have particular expertise in."

As far as the "too broad" issue, I can split the question into multiple smaller question.

PS: Isn't closing down this question in under 3 minutes a little trigger friendly?

  • 5
    Having trouble balancing confidence and rudeness is not a workplace specific problem; you can easily replace the word "boss" with "friend" or any other noun referring to another human being. As for the speed of closing, it's when I saw the question. We close questions ASAP so they can be improved ASAP and so that people don't waste time answering a vague/off topic question.
    – Rarity
    Jul 25, 2012 at 2:26
  • It's a pity. I hope that this question will be opened again. I my opinion it belongs here and it is on-topic. May be after an edit it is more concrete. Don't give up
    – Markus
    Jul 25, 2012 at 5:38
  • @Rarity i suggested an edit to original question.
    – acolyte
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:50
  • @Rarity. Now that you people have clarified, I see the problem, how would questions like - "How much would it hurt my progress if I am forthright and rude to my colleagues and boss when expressing my opinions?"
    – user186
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:57
  • @acolyte the edit makes it sound like a polling/Not Constructive question. If you have to ask for general "tips for dealing with X" you probably haven't come down to a specific problem yet
    – Rarity
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:58
  • @Rarity fair enough, i was just trying to narrow it down a little bit, focus it a bit better.
    – acolyte
    Jul 25, 2012 at 14:15

2 Answers 2


As far as the "too broad" issue, I can split the question into multiple smaller question.

This statement really stands out to me, because oftentimes hidden beneath the shroud of a really broad question that doesn't fit Stack Exchange is sometimes a series of really great on-topic, constructive questions that fit Stack Exchange perfectly!

This is great for you, because you get more targeted answers (and more upvotes), and it's great for our community because we generate more great, targeted content on the site. Additionally, it's great for others on Google searching for answers because the specific problem they're facing may be solved within the top answer to one of your great questions.

I encourage you to not look at this as "unfair" or "trigger happy" and instead look at this as an opportunity to expand something that's so-so into something great.

Remember, closure isn't permanent; it's designed to give you an opportunity to fix problems with your question before it gets answers, which would then make it harder to fix the question without invalidating those existing answers. See the faq for guidance on how to improve your question. Good luck! :)

  • 5
    Yep, and I agree with the closing, there are too many dimensions to be answered in its general form.
    – Nicole
    Jul 25, 2012 at 4:57

As a moderator, I would also have immediately closed this as Rarity did -- as too broad or off-topic (could be either) -- for the reason he noted in his comment above: "We close questions ASAP so they can be improved ASAP and so that people don't waste time answering a vague/off topic question."

You do have multiple questions; jmort253's answer discusses the potential benefits of this as you think about editing your question or making new questions.

You also state in the question "I don't mind a good book reference either." -- if you take a look at the [faq], it says "If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." Put those things together and you can see where your question is quite broad.

But Yannis's answer also highlights something that still would be a problem: the basic questions without much context are not Workplace-specific -- back to Rarity's comment, where you use "boss" you could swap out "friend" or anything else and make it equally valid without additional context.

In your question here, you note that "I don't have to worry about them elsewhere" -- that's the very beginning of something to work from that would help the question become more focused, more Workplace-specific, and a better fit for the SE format.

For example, see the differences between these two questions:

  • Arg how is that second question still getting upvotes? We are not group therapy.
    – Rarity
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:05
  • I dunno. There aren't reopen votes, though, so that's something.
    – jcmeloni
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:07
  • 1
    Just seems to be a trend of sympathy voting as opposed to quality voting. Vote for what's on-topic and you want to see more of, not because a downvoted question looks like a sad puppy...
    – Rarity
    Jul 25, 2012 at 13:09

You must log in to answer this question.