We talk about the same thing.
VTC == vote to close
We talk about the same thing.
VTC == vote to close
I’m distinguishing between Vote To Close which is more of a “when there are enough, just do it” and “vote for someone/something” like “voting for new moderators” (in SE) or “voting for a Tech Lead or Team Lead” (in Codidact) etc. There are two big differences:
I think VTC is a term coined by Stack Exchange users, however we definitely talk about the same thing when we talk about voting/VTC.
This talks about giving trusted users binding close powers (similar to moderators on SE) instead of using a voting algorithm (VTC)l.
Honestly interested in what’s the harm in having a discussion as long as it sticks somewhat close to the OPs question?
The primary harm of discussions is that they distract from answers. If there’s discussion in addition to answers, that’s ok — and that’s why i advocate a hybrid system between SE’s comments and chat. The problem is when the answer gets buried in discussion. Surely you must have seen these forum threads that go on for hundreds of pages, and there’s a plausible answer on page 3 but in fact it became obsolete a couple of years ago and the current answer is on page 176, but good luck finding it. Q&A sites are much better than discussion forums at being a repository of knowledge because there are no answers to answers: replies to answers are second class, only replies to the original question get prominence.
If a topic calls for back-and-forth discussion rather than a straight answer, it isn’t suitable for the Q&A format and needs to be closed.
Liking it, sounds fair!
I disagree with this.
In DIY (and I’m sure in some others as well), there are often either fairly complex questions where OP starts off not quite knowing what exactly they should be asking and X-Y problems where they ask something in a convoluted way and it turns out there is really a better question that they should be asking that triggered the question they did ask.
In both of these cases, and I am sure some others as well, quite a bit of discussion via comments is often beneficial to figure out the real goals of OP, which will often result in significant revision (generally a lot more detail) to the Question and much better Answers than would otherwise be provided.
Maybe the difference is between “discussion about the question” and “discussion inspired by the question”. Kind of hard to come up with a really good specific case right now, but it most definitely happens. Simply asking for “add more detail” or “post pictures” (which are almost automatic comments for DIY questions) doesn’t always result in the level of detail that a real discussion (via comments) generates. When that happens and someone jumps to “move comments to chat”, it is actually counter-productive because those valuable details get lost - at least in DIY, chat just doesn’t get used much, and new users have no idea about chat.
Isn’t this a case where you say: hey, we need to work out what you’re really asking here – let’s put this on hold so people don’t spend time on answers that miss the mark, and we’ll sort it out in this comment discussion, you’ll edit the question, and we’ll reopen?
In a sense, yes. But “On hold” as “unclear” or “too broad” or similar sends the absolute wrong message. It gets interpreted as “You don’t know how to ask a question, go away.” That may not be the intention, but that is the result.
I (an experienced SE user in general, but new to DBA where I asked a question) got “On hold shopping” and revised to make it better…and while I did get one nice welcoming comment after that, I can’t even tell if how many, if any, of the 5 people who put my Q on hold have reconsidered, I didn’t get any response from any of them saying “good, we’ll reconsider” or “not nearly enough of a change” VERY UNWELCOMING and that’s to someone who already knows how the system is supposed to work!
A much better system would be if instead the OP gets a message saying “Hey, here is the problem we see with your question as it is currently written. Can you come up with more details/rephrase xyz/give more history about how you got to this point/etc. and then we’ll be able to help you by giving a more useful answer.”
And to be honest, I think some SE communities handle this better than others. But “On hold” (except for clearly off-topic - like asking about “social networks” on a site for “ethernet networks” or vice versa) really is too harsh and, IMHO, counter-productive.
(And of course except for actual spammers, trolls, etc. - those deserve harsh. But not newbies who just need some help asking the right question in the right place.)
Whether we call it “on hold” or not, there must be some sort of mechanism to prevent people answering a question while its details are still being hammered out, or we will end up with lots of invalid answers because the question changed after they were posted.
Maybe we phrase it differently - “answers paused while we clarify details” or something along those lines - or maybe we don’t display it to the OP at all, though that does seem kind of counter-productive.
The current SE “On hold” is just too harsh. Plain and simple. And I am a “be blunt” type of person, so that is saying something!
It may be as simple as two different statuses:
Both categories would block new Answers. But the message would be very different - “Improvements Needed” would be much more welcoming and make it clear that “we want to get this to be a good question” instead of “what do you think you’re doing asking a bad question? go away!”.
The way SE handles putting questions on hold and closing them is not great. We can definitely improve on the presentation. The message we want to send is “we want to help you get your answer; to do that we need a little more info (or for you to narrow it down, or whatever)”. In the meantime, we want to prevent answers – but give the OP a positive message, not a negative one.
It seems like there are two unexamined premises here: that answers of underdeveloped questions won’t want to follow up to make sure the answer isn’t invalidated, and that answerers aren’t equipped to decide for themselves if a question is developed enough to answer.
Both of those premises often do seem to be true. Most answerers, especially with limited experience with high-quality Q&A, are unable, or at times unwilling, to figure out if a question has show-stopper problems. Some of these problems can be fairly subtle. While many answerers probably would want to make some effort to match answers to changed questions, that opens up further issues: how, exactly, are they to do so, and what are they to do about chameleon questions? You can’t expect someone to babysit their answers by manually checking on them for the next few days, so that means you’re looking at notifying them if the question is edited (or if the edits reach a certain threshold of significance). That’s inefficient and obnoxious, and the natural response to getting an irritating stream of notifications that require more work out of you is to try to cut them off as quickly as possible. So answerers have an incentive to stop caring about the question, and stop getting pinged about it, as soon as they can expect that further votes on their answer are unlikely. Also, many answerers are drive-by users, that may not be interested in any further site interactions, and leaving low-quality questions open to attract borderline spam, chattiness, and other moderation drains is not helpful.
Finally, as I see it, the basic point of closure is to forcibly align the incentives of the asker with the incentives of the site. They want answers with as little effort as possible, especially including at least one that they see as good, but extras don’t hurt much; the site wants verifiably high-quality answers only, and whatever effort is needed to make the question good enough to attract those. Closure ensures that the asker wants to satisfy the site’s expectations about question quality (and therefore answer quality and conciseness) in order to get anything. (This does not, of course, mean that they need to single-handedly fix the question. It just means they are no longer trying to skirt quality requirements they don’t understand and don’t care about.)
This still leaves the problem that askers may see bargaining with close-voters as an easier way to get answers than actually fixing the question, or may try re-asking it. The second can be managed with rate limits, dupe detection (AI flagging?), and so forth; the first is partly handled by emphasizing next steps in an objective, detailed, but straightforward close message, while de-emphasizing individual voters.
Maybe if instead of “on hold” those questions could be marked as ”under discussion”.
I also don’t think it should be a temporary label for closed questions, but a separate state of the question. A question is under discussion if there’s hope that it can/will be improved. A question can be under discussion for any amount of time (if you only have time on weekends, then having your answer automatically closed after two days is discouraging). Closing a question should need a second explicit action. It might also make sense that the ability to close a question is a higher privilege than the ability of putting it under discussion.
It’s never nice to see a question closed, and I think that’s because closure is an inherently negative action, that in turn causes users to leave the site as they don’t expect an answer from it anymore.
SE sort of fixes this with comments asking for clarification, but oftentimes enough downvotes/VTCs are ammassed on a question anyway that before the user has time to respond, the question is closed and essentially completely ignored.
So perhaps closure shouldn’t be included at all? The only possible reasons I see for it existing are to make the question better (replaced by comments/edits), to remove off-topic questions (which should just be deleted with explanation [soft deletion, whereby it’s only visible to mods/user] or moved to a different site) and to remove duplicates, which at this point is considered separate to closure.
Closure is not a punishment. It does not mean “you are bad”. It means “your question needs attention/improvement”.
We don’t want answers to off topic or duplicate questions, no discussion responses if discussions are forbidden and no guessing answers that are invalidated later, once the question is clarified.
In theory, closure is nothing more but a more powerful request for clarification. It should not be about removal, but about friendly asking the user to improve their question, so that they can get answers
I think the real problem is not with closure in general. It’s with the design of any closure system. Having a huge banner with the word “closed” is not friendly. It may be appropriate for experienced users, however new users will be discouraged.
What needs to be done, is to show the user: Hey, we have found these issues with your question, and they make it technically impossible to answer your question, even if we wanted to try it. Please fix them and we’ll be able to help you.
Important part of that is, that questions can be reopened as easy (or even easier) as they can be closed.
The current state of closing questions, however, is that they’re essentially neglected - if this was implemented, we would need to rectify that issue, with a queue similar to review queues. Likely the solution would be beyond MVP, though.
I think for now a list with questions that have reopen votes (together with maybe a check box-thing showing you whether you have completed it) would be fine.