(This answer simply states the general principles. I didn't vote to close or delete the question, so I'll leave it to those who did to confirm.)
Whether a question is suitable for the site is decided at the time it is put on hold, i.e. when voting to close a question. Those votes don't immediate...
@Josh61: Yes, assuming they should have been put on hold in the first place. The questions that shouldn't have been put on hold should be reopened of course. The difficult part is distinguishing these two categories.
@Josh61 Not necessarily. This answer only explains why the burden of proof lies with those who want to have this question undeleted or reopened. Reviewers have on occasion not deleted closed questions, because of their historic value. I'd imagine that there are also questions that reviewers consider have sufficient value to retain even though they are closed. (I.e. disallow further answers, but keep what's already been posted.)
@Josh61 There is an argument that the site's charter, especially the part regarding every question about English language and usage, calls for a looser policy. Clearly, there should still be boundaries, otherwise we might as well just have one Stack Exchange community instead of ELU, SO, etc. I'm interested to hear where you propose to (re)draw the line. (I'm not sure whether comments are a suitable venue for this discussion; if not, we can use / open a chat room to discuss this.)
@Lawrence: with single word requests, the main disqualifying factor in terms of the charter is probably the "detailed answers" part. But the charter is just a summary of the goals of the site. I wouldn't say it establishes site policy.
@suməlic Fair enough, though the level of detail that is sufficient does depend on what the question requires - as evidenced by other (non SWR) short answers that have been well-received. Regarding policy, the detail is what we're now discussing (recognising, of course, the mountain of historical discussion that already exists). Arguably, the summary provides a little more guidance than your comment might suggest.
@Lawrence: The reason I would discount the charter as a source of guidance for policy on question closure is because taking "every question" literally would directly contradict other material on the site, such as the Help Center page on question closure ("each community decides which specific topics are and are not allowed on their site."). Summaries often make general or technically incorrect statements about things that are explained in more detail in other places.
But anyway, you never said the charter was binding in the first place, you only said "there is an argument," and I'm not really in disagreement with you about that. I just don't find that argument convincing on its own :)
@suməlic (with reference to the earlier of your most recent pair of comments above) Indeed, hence my invitation to Josh61 to expand on his views. Nevertheless, looking at the track record of closures over the years, there has been a tendency to become ever stricter (albeit somewhat less so in recent weeks). People from both, shall we say, the strict and the open camps have been painfully labeled and hounded at various times. (cont'd)
@suməlic (cont'd) I think Josh61's comment is timely. It's hard to be dogmatic about something like English, but I'd support a call for the community to talk about this. Regarding your point about the charter, I'd state it differently, but we're in broad agreement. I'd say that it's binding because there's little else of relevance that's unchangeable even by site mods, but there is scope for working out the specifics.
I've invited Josh61. I hope he visits and shares some details on his views.
I'll start by declaring an interest in single-word-requests, and the various other requests. I think they're fun, they're about the English language and especially its usage (particularly idioms), and they're accessible to those like me without a degree in Linguistics. I've also built up a sizable chunk of rep off these questions, but I recognise and acknowledge that it's the policy that matters here, not potential rep loss (or gain, for that matter).
Of the three categories (etymologists, linguists, and serious English language enthusiasts), I fit only one - the enthusiast category.
I request that all participants in this chat state which of the three categories apply to them: etymologist, linguist, serious English language enthusiast.
Topic under discussion: where do we draw the line when closing and (separately) when deleting questions?
It's fairly straightforward for duplicate, unclear, SWR info, and proofreading. It's also probably fairly uncontroversial for too broad and primarily opinion-based. Does that leave research as the only category we need to talk about?
I have no credentials as an etymologist or linguist, although I am interested in both of these subjects. If I'm allowed to bend the categories a little, I would classify myself as an "English language and linguistics enthusiast."
@Lawrence I saw Josh's comment as focusing more on the difference between closing and deleting questions. In particular, only deletion makes the current answers unavailable.
Ah, thanks. I was going to say that in trying to define the scope of the discussion, I suddenly found that there didn't seem to be very much to talk about.
Ok, so let's focus on the distinction between closing and deleting questions.
In my opinion, we should raise the bar as high as possible for closure (placing on hold), but be more circumspect for deletion.
The high bar at closure is because placing questions on hold is the only mechanism we have to show that we're serious about having good questions.
Right. It's important to be sure that when deleting a question, you aren't also deleting any useful answers. (relevant SE Meta post: Question deletions are getting out of hand)
... I'd even go so far as to recommend that placing on hold be made a preliminary status (before closing and deletion) that requires only, say, 2 votes. More votes would be needed to close and yet more to delete, preferably all from different people.
@suməlic Yes, that's true. I've seen a similar Meta question and the caution it raises. But the problem is - where would good answers to bad questions go if the questions aren't duplicates?
@Lawrence How would that work though? Currently, "on hold" is mechanically the same as "closed." It's just given a different name to try to change the connotations.
@Lawrence I think the questions should either be re-opened or locked.
If the question got a good answer, it wasn't really that bad, probably. Or if it was, it can be edited before being reopened.
@suməlic True, but down-votes don't actually have consequences other than rep (and psychology, I suppose), and newly-registered users can just resign and re-sign.
People seem to be somewhat reticent with reopen votes. Or at least, I get that impression sometimes. I don't see the point of keeping a question closed if its super old and already has a good answer. It's kind of like a "badge of disapproval" for the questioner not showing enough research, or something.
@suməlic Same as the process from closed to deleted. The first step is a button on the question that says, "Place on Hold", with all the current reasons for closure. This goes into a review queue. When someone else confirms, it's placed on hold. Then after an appropriate time (a few days, at least), the system would migrate it to another review queue for closure. The current process applies from there to deletion.
I think the proper reason to close a question is if it's not in a state where a good answer is possible. That's what you're doing by closing it: making it impossible to post an answer. If there's an unambiguously "good" answer already, why close the question?
@Lawrence But what would happen if it just stays as "On Hold"?
There is already a two-day delay for deleting closed questions.
@suməlic Actually, if the answers are so good, it should be possible to rehabilitate the question. Either reword in-situ, or open a new question, then close the bad question as a duplicate of the new question. Locking it doesn't deal with the 'badness' of the bad question.
@Lawrence I don't think I would support that duplicate maneuver. Or at least, I can't think of any situations where it would be the right course of action. I think people close too many questions as "duplicates" that really aren't. I am guilty of this too sometimes. And if the questions are truly duplicates, I can't think of why one would be on-topic and the other not.
@Lawrence Right, there are sometimes tricky cases. If someone is motivated enough to post a good answer, but the question has been closed, I would hope they would make a Meta post explaining what it is and asking for the question to be reopened.
@suməlic Regarding why close bad questions that have good answers, closure focuses on the question. I often open the question page to have a look at the answers anyway, but that's not really the way the system is set up.
@Lawrence Right. I am not a big fan of the review queue format, actually. I mean, it's way better than the delete vote list, but that's so bad that it's not really saying much.
@suməlic If there's no seconder, then the question stays open, maybe with a timed decay for the on-hold vote so that it is lifted automatically after a period. This would be similar to the mechanism in place now for close votes that don't gather enough support to close the question.
@suməlic Ah, changing the goalposts on the question. I'm not sure about that - if the community decides to change the goalposts, I can see arguments on both sides. Leave it be for historical reasons, or delete it because it no longer fits.
@suməlic They wouldn't be truly duplicates. I suggest this approach because there may be ethical considerations. The person who rewords the question may consider the changes to go beyond (or counter or just differently to) the OP's intentions. Starting afresh allows that to be taken into consideration. Of course, the good answers can be migrated and the bad question simply deleted.
@suməlic Heh, I should go and do that at some stage for the questions to some of my answers. :)
@suməlic I haven't spent much time on the delete vote list. What's the difference?
@suməlic Same as what we have for closed questions now. It stays on hold indefinitely. There should be a reverse mechanism to lift the hold as well. For consistency, lifting should require the same number of votes as it took to place it on hold.
@Lawrence The one benefit it that it lets you see them all at the same time, instead of one-by-one. The downsides: you can't see which posts you have already voted to close, there is no way to sort that I can see (there are just two columns, one for "most votes" and one for "recent votes"), and it combines questions (which I can vote on) and answers (which I can't).
@Lawrence So it's basically the same thing as being closed, except you can't delete it. And then voting to close is just a kind of prelude to deleting the post.
@Lawrence Yes, you can see the rest (up to thirty days back) by clicking the triangle next to the header of each section.
Apparently there were only 3 undelete votes in the past 30 days.
@suməlic Yes. The main difference is that people would be encouraged to place on hold more aggressively than to close. The goal is to quickly bring up the automated notice that has all the boilerplate about improving the question.
@suməlic Ah, we only have 3 on Most Votes and Recent Votes at the moment. :)
@Lawrence Hmm. I think the current system works well enough. It sort of seems like most people ignore the automated notice anyway. I think comments are often more effective, so I try to leave them if I seriously think the question has a chance of being improved.
@Lawrence Only 3 undelete votes. A lot more delete votes.
@suməlic You've got a point. Something else that seems work is to actually edit the question, then leave a comment and also invite a roll back. It's rare that this isn't appreciated by the OP.
@Lawrence Right, I try to leave a comment when I make major edits, although generally I suggest that the OP make further edits if they don't like it rather than rolling back. Rolling back won't solve whatever the original problem was.
@suməlic It's placed there for politeness (in case the editor missed the point totally), together with an invitation to edit further. In my limited experience with this, they are hardly ever rolled back.
Hmm, this exchange has given me a much better handle on dealing with bad questions. Thank you for the discussion. Do you have anything else to bring up on this topic at this time?
@Lawrence I think we've covered enough ground. It's also getting late for me, so I think I'm going to say "Good night." Thanks for discussing this with me!
room topic changed to Sandy Lines: Where do we draw the line when closing and when deleting questions? [closed-questions] [deleted-questions] [deleting-posts] [discussion] [on-topic-off-topic]
@KitZ.Fox Already having fun :) . The discussion with suməlic was great! We have the beginnings of one policy so far - instead of quickly voting to close questions that lack info, edit it first, then invite the OP to re-edit. This gets some good bits up quickly, and gives the OP an example and motivation to re-edit.
I was going to suggest the same for first answers as well.
@KitZ.Fox I know that when an OP edits their question within n days of it being closed, it automatically goes into the Reopen Votes review queue. Is the same true when someone else edits it for them?
One thing I wondered about during my first days in the Close Votes review queue: what is the site's position on questions of the form "What's the difference in meaning/usage between X and Y?", where X and Y are some words or phrases.
Assuming it's not easily answered by looking up X and Y in a dictionary, that is.
@Randal'Thor I'm going through the Room Owner answer you posted. The first tool mentioned is throwing out the trash. The "room" menu only has "full transcript" and "create a bookmark". Is there another menu to use?
@Randal'Thor I think some of the questions of that form come across as potential migrations to ELL, but others are answered here.
@KitZ.Fox Is there any way to make stars 'sticky'? I'd like the two in bold to remain at the top of the list.
Actually, the topic star can be removed now that it appears in the sub-title.
@Lawrence There should be a "move messages" button at the bottom of the "room" menu. You can use that to move posts from here to any of the "Trash" chatrooms, or to any other room you want.
@Lawrence Yes, that's called pinning. Click on the little black arrow to the right of the post on the starboard, and you should see a "pin this item" button.
A couple of examples are this and this, both of which I voted to Leave Open but which I thought looked very likely to be closed. Apparently I was wrong, since they've never been closed, but they must have had a lot of VTCs.
@Randal'Thor It's at the top: "English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about English language and usage."
In the Meta discussions, particularly about bad questions / answers, one of the recurring themes is that this community is for everyone who has an English question - hence homework questions and the like. This stems from the name "English.SE".
I guess I'd definitely be an enthusiast then. I've long been interested in language, and I'm a notorious language Nazi pedant, but never really studied it formally or professionally.
@Lawrence It's just an exotic infection of my pleural cavity. It's not cancer! (Probably.) So I'm fine to do whatever I feel able to do according to my pulmonologist, whom I did not mention to that I was planning on doing these particular things.
@KitZ.Fox Yeah, that's a tough allergy to have. At least it only rears its head when you deliberately take something, and not when you're just having something at the restaurant.
@KitZ.Fox Just popping back in to say Happy Holidays, and if you're still going through with it, here's hoping you and yours will be happy with the outcome of today's adventures! :)
The original question, and this discussion, have touched on a lot of things. And the room description is very broad. I'm trying to figure out what the question is. Help.
Sandy Lines
Sandy Lines