We're at least partially about helping people aren't we?

Question

I think the fast closures impact on the quality of answers in some cases and encourage shooting an answer in quickly.

I do this every so often, because if I don't the question may well be closed before anyone gets a chance to help the OP. I understand that some peoples primary objective is about the site etc,. but we're also at least partially about helping the OP solve an immediate problem aren't we?

I wonder if it's possible to put a time limit on closures, like 2 hours or something before a question can be closed. Might let some troll questions hang around, but plenty of those seem to hang around anyway. All the fuss about the HNQ is over my head, I've rarely bothered looking at it, unsure how many people actually do so I could be wrong.

Answer 1

There is a time limit on offering a bounty, there should be a time limit to be exceeded before voting to close.

Too often, a close mob comes in and just shut things down. One member in particular seems to think that two different post are duplicates if vowels can be found in both.

The problem this creates is that close votes draw more close votes. We have hundreds of questions here on meta asking why a question was closed, with a massive chunk of them being reopened without any editing or cleanup.

To make matters worse, questions that do not pertain to IT seem to get closed quickly, as the attitude seems to be "If I can't answer it, it must not be clear or answerable"

We had a few blue collar questions, and one maritime question closed for these reasons. What made the maritime question's so egregious is that it was easily answerable by anyone in the shipping industry, cruise industry, or anyone remotely familiar with maritime law.

Putting a delay on the close votes would enable people with knowledge of industries outside of IT to get in some answers before the close mob rushes in because they're unfamiliar with those industries.

Answer 2

There's a post over on meta.se that I like to link in to discussions like this: it's worth a read in full, and I'll excerpt it here in part:

What you do here isn't just about solving one person's problem.

See, once you realize that it's not just about the one asker, or the four voters, but rather the fifteen thousand searchers with the same problem... Well, suddenly, a whole ton of things that seem prickly and self-important, like editing out "Thanks in advance!" aren't about being "a bunch of power-happy pedants," they're about helping all the people who will ever have that problem to find the best answers. (Emphasis in the original.)

Yes, we're partially about helping the original querent. And we're more about helping the long tail of readers who will ever see a post. Which leads us to a tricky balancing act: each one of us--editors, voters, answerers--comes to an individual, personal understanding of where they draw the line between those two priorities that sometimes exist in tension.

Some people ( o/ ) think that a quick close-edit-reopen cycle are good for the site and good for the querent. Others think that the "sting" of seeing their question "on hold" is too great a harm to visit upon new users. This Network, I believe, has room for both sorts of stackizens.

Yes, we're about helping people. And we sometimes have different ideas about how best to do that. Vote your conscience, trust that others are doing the same, and ask questions when something doesn't pass your "smell test."

Answer 3

Maybe it's time we get review audits? These quickly weed out "reviewers" who never ever move the cursor away from the Close button. The rest of reviewers will think twice before closing a question, and (also very important) will favor community-agreed standards for closing over their personal standards.

Answer 4

Or we could close questions because they are not of sufficient quality to stay on the site, help the asker improve the question so it's worthwhile keeping around for the long term, and then answer it with thorough explanations and maintain high quality in answers too.

The result is that we get good questions that end up open, good answers that are worth voting for, and more users staying around to repeat the process.

If it's really about helping people, perhaps a clever quote will help you in turn.

Give a person a fish, and they are fed for a day; teach them to fish and they are fed for life.

And if that doesn't suit some people's preference for unjustified one-liners and the decline of decent content they are, as some have ironically been happy to say, quite free to leave.

Answer 5

We're at least partially about helping people aren't we?

I'd like to think that was the most important thing. But sometimes I wonder.

I wonder if it's possible to put a time limit on closures, like 15 minutes or something before a question can be closed.

I think this is a good idea, but 15 minutes is not long enough. 2 hours feels more right to me. Mods can always close a question quickly, if there's some sort of "question emergency".

Unfortunately I don't think this will change things much. As long as we have folks who would rather close questions than actually ask or answer questions, we'll still have too many closed. Kinda sad.

Answer 6

I think there are different matters here.

Too often, a close mob comes in and just shut things down. One member in particular seems to think that two different post are duplicates if vowels can be found in both.

This is a likely a matter to be handled by mods if there is a form of abuse.

To make matters worse, questions that do not pertain to IT seem to get closed > quickly, as the attitude seems to be "If I can't answer it, it must not be >clear or answerable".

Two possibilities here :

• Maybe the fact that knowing a bit the field to be able to answer don't make it off-topic isn't clear enough. And this should be address in the guide lines and eventually off-topic reason (with an addendum like : "Note : requiring a bit of knowledge of the field don't make it off-topic").

• Specific behaviour -> mods.

The problem this creates is that close votes draw more close votes. We have hundreds of questions here on meta asking why a question was closed, with a massive chunk of them being reopened without any editing or cleanup.

People which have their close votes cancelled too much should probably bring attention to the mods.

Of course I know what you think : "It's the community that manages, mods are exception handlers" but the problems is that, unless the point about the domain, you're clearly pointing a very specific set of users, and you can try to put all the anonimity you want, The Workplace community know who they're and this will finished in poiting fingers.

Another possibility would be for the community to change the rules and policies apply there, even if it makes them quite more different from others sites, and having mods enforce them, because they're the ones that have the tools for that. (Ex : people that don't try too often to help users to salvage their question will lose their close vote privilege for a period of time).

Answer 7

Closure does not (always) mean "this question is bad".

It often simply means "this question needs to be improved".

If you think a question is good, don't just instantly vote to reopen.

Try to understand why someone voted to close.

Try to edit the question to improve it, to address the reasons why it was closed.

Try to turn it into something that others with the same problem will be able to find if they search for it, and that those people will find useful.

Try to avoid focusing exclusively on what the asker asks in answers and instead write answers that will be helpful to others with the same problem, while also covering the details specific to the asker's situation, either as a footnote, a comment or a link to another post.

---

And sometimes closure does mean "this question is bad" (not objectively bad, just bad for this site).

Sometimes trying to help many people means getting rid of off-topic questions even when the asker has a problem you really want to help with.

This is not to say you can't help them by posting an answer or leaving a comment before getting rid of it.

But the decision to keep it, i.e. reopen it, shouldn't be whether or not the question is answerable, but rather whether the question, in its current state (taking the answers that's been posted into account), falls within the scope of the site, increases the overall quality of the site, and will be useful to others.

---

Sometimes you might not understand why a question is closed, sometimes you might understand but just disagree - that's okay too. We can't all always see eye to eye.

---

Regarding the current state of affairs:

I feel it's roughly turned into a battleground - people who focus primarily on long-term value against people who focus primarily on short-term value. Focusing too much on either one or the other is bad, but having each side see the other as the "enemy" means they likely gravitate towards the edges (i.e. closing too many questions, including good ones, and reopening and answering too many questions, including bad ones) as opposed to trying to find some middle ground or understand the perspective of the other side.

That's not really good for anyone.

Answer 8

Sounds like a great idea to me, and I have to agree with Joe - 15 mins isn't long enough. Personally I would say 24hrs because that would give a reasonable chance for those in other timezones to have a look.

People like to hide behind the "quality" strawman whenever the topic of helping people comes up - seems to me like that's rather like keeping a bar clean by not serving anyone any drinks. Sure you'll have the cleanest bar in town but what's the point?