As far as site vision and obligations go, each and every answerer, questioner, and reader has their own agenda. The site is not set in stone. It can do a 180 just because of one twitter post about some fluff to do with HNQ (this isn't about that debacle, it's just an example; I don't have a twitter account so couldn't care less).

So while people talk about the primary objective being the site vision or whatever. The site is an evolving process, the vision today may be vastly different tomorrow. Each site is different and should be analysed as such by those of us participating especially those of us with high enough rep to close questions etc.

There is a huge difference in the dynamic between stack overflow where there are many ways of answering a question, but at the end of the day 1+1=2.

We deal with people, personalities, cultural differences, fluid and complex situations, locales and a host of other things. At some point this basic fact should be recognised in terms of how things are done for the good of the site.

This would be good for the site as well as aid the retention of valuable users who volunteer their time, energy, experience and insights to actually answer questions. I actually wonder at times how valuable some of the users are who don't seem to actually do much of anything except VTC or downvote.

If you haven't been putting in the thought and energy answering questions regularly over the years, then I honestly don't think you would understand the dynamics, and you might want to contemplate whether you're actually helping or hindering.

  • 2
    @SaggingRufus - hmm, I hadn't thought about that. You may be right. I was assuming that some folks would just rather be judges than be helpful. – Joe Strazzere Oct 29 '18 at 10:37
  • 2
    @JoeStrazzere fake internet point and "fame" always win – SaggingRufus Oct 29 '18 at 10:44
  • 1
    @SaggingRufus but they're all using fake names :-) As do I for that matter – Kilisi Oct 29 '18 at 11:35
  • 5
    ... you mean Kilisi isn't your real name. I feel lied to. – SaggingRufus Oct 29 '18 at 11:38
  • 3
    It's funny that there is already 1 close vote for this question. But it's not surprising. – Joe Strazzere Oct 29 '18 at 11:40
  • 9
    @JoeStrazzere I like that its "unclear what you're asking" for a metapost tagged as discussion – SaggingRufus Oct 29 '18 at 11:43
  • @SaggingRufus talking about users that only VTC or DV – DarkCygnus Oct 29 '18 at 16:34
  • @DarkCygnus Talking about VTC-ers – SaggingRufus Oct 29 '18 at 16:47
  • 8
    I've been trying to piece together what's going on, based on this and the other meta Q and responses. It sounds like there's an issue with close votes being used inappropriately startlingly often, but the metas about this are written in such a way that they can only be understood by those who already know exactly what's happening (which is probably only 10k+ power users who visit the site multiple times a day). The problem remains impenetrable to those not already fully aware of it. [1/2] – doppelgreener Oct 30 '18 at 11:13
  • 7
    You may get more traction if you describe the problem specifically so that other site members understand it, including those who aren't super engaged in moderation and visiting multiple times a day. This empowers a broader set of users people to recognise the problem, address it when they see it, share their solutions, etc. It means people not already recognising and acting on the issue will be able to do that. Right now there isn't much empowerment for anyone but the most frequent users of the site to do that. [2/2] – doppelgreener Oct 30 '18 at 11:13
  • 3
    Who voted unclear what you're asking? It's tagged discussion – rath Nov 2 '18 at 17:35
  • 1
    Tempted as well, but it would be in bad faith :) – rath Nov 3 '18 at 10:22
  • 1
    @JohnGowers perhaps it is because you missed the recent events, and lack knowledge on the context, to be able to understand well. I'd say that is just result of your lack of engagement in this particular site (as evidenced by your 0 questions, 0 answers, 0 edits, and 0 flags). I see you have high rep in Math.SE, and I am sure that if I go over to that Meta and read the latest posts I would also lack knowledge on such, and thus think that the discussion is "unclear what you are asking" (although, again, it is a discussion not a question). – DarkCygnus Nov 6 '18 at 17:15
  • 1
    Or I could go to Math.SE and validly attempt to close all the questions as 'unclear what you're asking' because I don't understand much past basic arithmetic, or even go to Spanish.SE and try and close everything as unclear quite truthfully, because I don't understand Spanish – Kilisi Nov 6 '18 at 22:16
  • 1
    @Kilisi better : consider you're a java developer and vtc every question about another language on SO. You'll need to get multiple accounts however for that :D – Walfrat Nov 9 '18 at 12:56

I agree with you and Richard U's answer. I have noticed that there seems to be a contingent of users on here that are intent on closing down almost everything. It is the same people every time. It is not a healthy attitude for the site and I haven't experienced it on any other SE sites that I use. I think, on this site in particular, the 'opinion-based' VTC reason should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Most answers here will be inherently opinion-based due to the subject matter - Workplace issues are not an exact science and there is not always going to be an obvious right/wrong answer.

In fact, perhaps the 'opinion-based' VTC reason should be removed entirely for this site, as it doesn't really fit very well? That alone shouldn't be a reason to close a question on here, should it?

  • 1
    Opinion based is used even on questions which aren't opinion based I'm finding more and more, now that I'm noticing things like that. So if they're going to close regardless of whether the reason fits or not, they'll just choose something else. – Kilisi Nov 9 '18 at 4:28
  • 2
    @Kilisi something I've mentioned in the past is that questions should only be closed if there are 5 close votes that agree on the same reason. I think it would help ensure there is some coherence is the close voting and cut out frivolous cases. I might raise it as a question/suggestion in Meta SE. – Time4Tea Nov 9 '18 at 14:58
  • 1
    Not a bad idea at all, won't help the parrot voting since they just click the same thing, but better than nothing – Kilisi Nov 9 '18 at 15:01

From the formerly gruntled poster.

I've seen many questions closed quickly because the people doing the closing were not familiar with the industry. Anything blue-collar and such tend to get shut down rapidly. After that, anything not IT tends to get shut down almost as quickly.

I recall a question getting shut down regarding the maritime industry which was, in fact, easily answerable, but closed quickly, and then, after discussion here, was reopened, but it should never have been closed to begin with.

I have seen close votes start to accumulate within seconds of the posting. This does not even give the OP time to reconsider and/or edit what he posted.

this, IMO needs to change.

  • 4
    I remember the question, and others. Hence my annoying you chaps on meta. Usually I wouldn't care, but I got a shock when people started leaving. – Kilisi Oct 29 '18 at 16:45
  • 2
    @Kilisi I'm only here for a limited engagement, leaving again after Nov 5th – Old_Lamplighter Oct 30 '18 at 19:20
  • 9
    @RichardU you cant tease us like this! There is an ungodly high number of posts where people been neglecting to tell the OPs that HR is not their friend. – SaggingRufus Oct 31 '18 at 13:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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