Timeline for Question Close Reasons project - Introduction and Feedback
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2022 at 4:08 | history | edited | bad_coder | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added extra emphasis to the link users will likely be looking for.
|
| May 1, 2022 at 1:56 | history | edited | MachavityMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 21, 2022 at 4:43 | comment | added | David C. Rankin | This is a good project to have -- don't screw it up. Close reasons on SO have been a moving target for years. There have been improvements (and not so much improvements). The rational behind how and why one target should be chosen over another has been a moving target as well leaving gaps (where no close reason fits many questions needing to be closed) or overlap (where more than one may apply). The "this question belongs on another site" generally doesn't list the needed site (Unix&Linux being a common one). Moderators give differing basis for either moving or failing to move. Good luck! | |
| Apr 21, 2022 at 0:00 | history | edited | Henry EckerMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Link to question instead of answer
|
| Apr 20, 2022 at 21:48 | history | edited | Oleg Valter is with Ukraine | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a paragraph about the effort on rethinking close reasons
|
| Apr 20, 2022 at 21:44 | comment | added | Oleg Valter is with Ukraine | @Dexygen you might be interested in the followup discussion then | |
| Apr 20, 2022 at 18:29 | comment | added | Dexygen | If this initiative does not bring back some previous close reasons it's worthless. The one close reason that absolutely needs to be brought back is "too localized". In other words, just debugging the OP's code. It seems that's what SO has devolved into. | |
| Apr 20, 2022 at 16:49 | answer | added | Braiam | timeline score: 0 | |
| Apr 20, 2022 at 14:42 | comment | added | Oleg Valter is with Ukraine | @EJoshuaS-StandwithUkraine the project was specifically scoped to be about Stack Overflow only, but if its scope ever gets expanded to the network sites, methinks the current wording should suffice for more subjective-oriented sites of the network as there is a distinction between "good" subjective (verifiable as you mentioned) and "bad" subjective (baseless opinions) | |
| Apr 20, 2022 at 14:37 | comment | added | EJoshuaS - Stand with Ukraine | Will the "opinion-based" text change for all sites? The proposed text seems ok for sites like Stack Overflow where there's often an objective solution available, but for other sites like Workplace.se and Literature.se it doesn't work as well because there may not be an objectively correct solution; however, people are still expected to justify their answers with facts, references, etc. | |
| Apr 19, 2022 at 1:57 | answer | added | mickmackusa | timeline score: 28 | |
| Apr 16, 2022 at 12:43 | comment | added | Braiam | @Makoto the fundamentals were not solid because they were continually diluted from their weak state. Duplicates now is firmly putting the onus on the answers, rather than the question itself. Community specific reasons still don't include an option to just say "this is not programming at all" (which is what off topic literally should mean on SO). This is not the foundation, this is simply more force applied to inertia. If you want to correct course, this will make it harder. Tell me, if there's something wrong that is not tolerable, how is going to change? Another discussion? | |
| Apr 16, 2022 at 6:46 | answer | added | Sayse | timeline score: -3 | |
| Apr 15, 2022 at 15:29 | comment | added | Makoto | @Braiam: Not sure why you don't think the fundamentals are solid. The start is getting this together and allowing the community to provide clarity and feedback in one, centralized and standard location about these close reasons. The ultimate objective would be to then enshrine it as a part of the actual close reasons and FAQ and provide the contextual information that so many people actually need. So I don't know why you protest here; this is the foundation. | |
| Apr 15, 2022 at 14:15 | comment | added | Braiam | @Makoto at least Rome has solid fundamentals to be built upon. Building on sand doesn't work either. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 19:25 | comment | added | Makoto | @Braiam: Gotta roll before you can rock (before you can crawl (before you can walk)). As in, this is at least some progress. Can't expect Rome to be built overnight on this. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 18:09 | comment | added | Braiam | @Makoto read this to know ^ why is not what you think it will do. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 18:09 | comment | added | Braiam | Bella, I'm sorry you were given this on your plate. The objective of "create a community-wiki post on Meta Stack Overflow that can serve as a resource to help the community know when to use each close reason when closing questions and to help users who had their questions closed understand the reason behind it" is best served by modifying the close reasons themselves. I was thinking that we were going to do that backwards, explain what we mean and then craft a message that was short and to the point to replace the close reasons. This is not that. We've already tried this. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 17:22 | answer | added | gnat | timeline score: 7 | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 11:41 | comment | added | ouflak | "How could I, a new employee/user, come up with such an important and valuable resource for the community?" Well... you could actually take part in the Close Vote queues for a few weeks and find out hands-on how difficult it can be to ascribe (or not) a close vote on some of these posts. Perhaps a bit of review time spent in the ReOpen queue wouldn't hurt either. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 1:05 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | What you see today is what CMs (Bella, really) + a lot of community members, and moderators could put together. The next step for me is approaching our product team and figuring out ways to incorporate this into the product. I don't know what this will look like yet, that's a conversation for our Product folks, CMs, and probably even more community members. But I definitely want us to explore ways to make this more surfaceable by design. We don't know when yet, and it could be a while, but there's room to make this even more usable. Shipping now was not letting perfect be the enemy of good. | |
| Apr 14, 2022 at 1:02 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @ZoestandswithUkraine (& others): The idea (for CMs) is not to be done here. We definitely agree that an FAQ is not the most visible thing in the world, however, it is a significant improvement. We wanted this to be a resource for reviewers, moderators, and folks who have their questions closed. Reviewers can more safely and more consistently apply these reasons, them + mods also have an authoritative thing to point to. Users who have their questions closed have a compilation of what next steps they can take, if any, to get it reopened if they so wish. (+1) | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 21:09 | comment | added | Catija | @ZoestandswithUkraine The Community-specific ones can be linked to in the close post notice for the asker quite easily as well as the guidance for how to use the close reason in the flag/vote to close modal - this will make those, at least, immediately accessible to askers. Right now we don't have a solution for the network-default close reasons other than encouraging close voters to link to the appropriate answer in a comment when they vote to close. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 18:04 | answer | added | VLAZ | timeline score: 60 | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:49 | comment | added | Kevin B | That one provides an answer to a common problem though... "Why was my post closed or downvoted?". This one... not so much. We have another resource here for such users, where as the new FAQ just seems like what should be in the help center, as it's far more blunt/information rich, rather than speaking directly to users about how to resolve their immediate concerns. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:46 | comment | added | gnat | ...another reason for this effort may be more internal to the company: they may want to grow an expert in SO close reasons (these reasons probably matter 10x more than those at all other sites combined - and besides, one familiar with these could reuse this knowledge quite efficiently at other sites - give or take handful of site-specific "surprises"). When Bella wrote about feeling ill-equipped this immediately clicked because at one of past jobs I was assigned fairly similar project in the area I had no idea about before (that was tough but eventually it worked, to my own surprise) | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:31 | comment | added | gnat | @KevinB one possible source of inspiration that springs to mind for this project is this FAQ post at SE.SE meta. I wouldn't call it a million dollar success but per my observations it is referrred quite regularly and saves people more effort than they invest in its maintenance | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:29 | comment | added | VLAZ | @Makoto I like your optimism that users still wouldn't try to lecture us what the close reason really means. On multiple occasions I've been told that re-asking a closed question is the correct thing to do. Because that's what the close reason says. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:27 | comment | added | Makoto | @KevinB: Yes, the community would be curating the FAQ, but it's very much the company that put the FAQ out in the first place. Now we have an authoritative thing to point to to say why someone's question was closed, and none of us get the giant target painted on our backs in doing so. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:26 | comment | added | Makoto | @PeterMortensen: It's been a recurring theme with all of their "campaigns" in "support" of the community that the company just didn't bother to explain why close votes happen or what they mean, or own them in some way. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:25 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | @Makoto: When was that? In 2013? | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:24 | comment | added | Zoe - Save the data dump Mod | How is this going to be made visible? An FAQ on meta isn't the most visible thing in the world, and we can't feature it forever. It's not even explicitly featured now, but not really the point. Do you plan to link it somewhere more visible? | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 17:10 | comment | added | Kevin B | I mean... not to be blunt... but... what does this actually accomplish? we still have the same close reasons, and this is more or less just a community curated FAQ posted by an employee. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:50 | comment | added | Makoto | You cannot begin to comprehend how overjoyed I am to see this. The company is finally taking the time to explain what these close reasons mean. It only took so many years but...it's nice to see. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:39 | comment | added | Tom | What is the plan with the text telling a user their question got closed? Will it still link to the help center or will it now refer to the new meta post? If it is the latter, then you really need to make sure that the question (or the answers in case of a direct link to each answer) will never be deleted, or else all prior close reason boxes will contain a dead link. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:24 | history | edited | Bella_BlueStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:21 | comment | added | Nick is tired | As I'm sure you realised researching this, re: "help the community know when to use each close reason when closing questions" - When certain close reasons should be used (some more than others) can be rather opinionated. I'm hoping this guidance isn't intended to be prescriptive. | |
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:21 | history | edited | MachavityMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 13, 2022 at 16:05 | history | asked | Bella_BlueStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |