Discussion on lack of research being a close reason

Mitch

May 3, 2017 13:39

@Tonepoet No, it's not perfect. Isn't the issue the lack of research?

Tonepoet

@Mitch Yes yes, the lack of research... I'd wish we'd treat questions with the more careful discrimination of determining just what a "commonly available resource" is. Automatic closure when no "perfect" resource exists strikes me as much too hasty.

Mitch

Not having a perfect answer in a reference is not the point of the close reason. The close reason is to prevent wasting time with frivolous questions. If the OP says 'I vaguely can't remember X' and that's it, then they haven't even tried.

M.A.R.

May 3, 2017 13:56

I'm not even convinced lack of research is a good option for closure.

Tonepoet

@Mitch That's not actually so clear. The original purpose of gen. ref. closure wasn't "haven't even tried" so much as "lazy answer with no effort to further explain put into it." and while the sitewide standard has been discontinued in 2013, there isn't really too much of an explanation regarding how our closure reason differs from the older one when you consider the qualifying sentence is the second one.

Mitch

@M.A.R. Why is that?

M.A.R.

Lack of research is a common trait among bad questions, but there's no guarantee an interesting question will demonstrate effort

Tonepoet

59

Q: Basic questions are not so basic

It has come up in other threads that we have a lot of "basic" or "lowest common denominator" questions. However, a few myths about this need to be put to rest. First, we do have a general reference close reason, and we do use it. Questions which really are as basic as they seem can be closed, an...

Mitch

@M.A.R. Good point.

M.A.R.

May 3, 2017 13:58

So you end up closing good questions as lacking research because the policy does say so

Kit Z. Fox

If you are asking the difference between two words, the least you can do is put definitions of each word in your question.

Mitch

But lack of effort is very annoying. 'What is a good word for X?' can certainly be interesting, but the lack of just checking a thesaurus is just irresponsible.

M.A.R.

@Mitch I'm not just thinking about interesting questions

Mitch

What else then?

M.A.R.

A difficult grammar question with no effort demonstrated

Tonepoet

May 3, 2017 14:02

The syntax questions usually do get a free pass on the research requirement, as do the single word requests (provided that no rough equivalent was suggested for a thesaurus to be checked).

M.A.R.

Sure, it might not get closed if a renowned user, like AraucariaMan, asks it

@Tonepoet and there is no definitive guide on this, is there?

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. C.G.E.L. =P

M.A.R.

You end up with certain bureaucratic users cough cough Rathony cough cough causing trouble

Tonepoet

Technically it is in our list of "Commonly Available Resources" so surely it qualifies!

M.A.R.

@Tonepoet No, I mean a definitive guide on what gets a free pass on the research requirement

Tonepoet

May 3, 2017 14:07

@M.A.R. I'm not sure anymore. The Gen. Ref. flowchart in Basic Questions Are Not So Basic looks like it was meant to function that way, but Gen. Ref. isn't a closure reason anymore.

MetaEd

@M.A.R. The purpose of SE is to invite expert answers that will be useful to future visitors. There's your definitive guide right there.

M.A.R.

The thing is, a newbie closer comes along a good question with no effort provided, and VTCs anyway, because that's what the policy allows by definition

So unless three people realize it and leave the question open, people are gonna jump on the bandwagon

@MetaEd That's an impractical and vaguely defined sentence

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. Which definition is that?

MetaEd

@M.A.R. Well then let's just close SE, shall we :-)

M.A.R.

@Tonepoet Usually the close reason itself, and the fluff that appears in the close banner, can be regarded as a definition

I haven't checked ELU's close reasons, but if such a reason exists, which it does on ELL, it's kinda worrisome since it's a slippery slope

Tonepoet

May 3, 2017 14:14

@M.A.R. Upon reconsideration, I think the only thing that actually qualifies a question as off-topic is the "commonly-available resource" criterion. There's a "Please include the research" clause, but it doesn't really seem to indicate any actual requirement. Maybe if the word "Please" was removed it would read more like an imperative command...

"Please include the research you've done, or consider if your question suits our English Language Learners site better. Questions that can be answered using commonly-available references are off-topic."

MetaEd

@Tonepoet When you click to post a new question, check the guidance on the right sidebar.

M.A.R.

Wow

MetaEd

"Provide details. Share your research."

M.A.R.

Show research or go to ELL?

@MetaEd That's guidance, not the nth commandment :)

MetaEd

It's all guidance. Just like stop signs are guidance.

Tonepoet

May 3, 2017 14:16

@MetaEd To be fair, that's not entirely clear as a demand either. "We prefer questions that can be answered"...

"We prefer if you obey the traffic signs" is a strictly true statement that would never be put on a stop sign. =P

M.A.R.

I don't need proof for the fact that there are good questions that drive experts here and do not show research. In real life, research is not a prerequisite, so why should every good question include effort?

There's a counterargument that this "research" which shouldn't lead to an answer or it would've been a self-answer, is wasting reader's time when the question is clear enough

MetaEd

@M.A.R. Some SE policies exist to help foster expert community. The expectation that askers give details and do some homework before asking is partly out of respect for the experts. It's also, of course, to help prevent confusion about what the question means.

Mitch

@Tonepoet The first off-topic reason 'Please include research...' is the Gen Ref reason. Gen Ref has never left, jut the label isn't there.

M.A.R.

@MetaEd And the problem here is there can be 1-rep experts, so either there should be double standards and people would invoke Godwin's law on meta or everyone would take some flack, good and shitty posters alike

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. That vaguely makes sense if the only reason a question can be closed on E.L.L. for lack of research is "answerable by a dictionary", esp. since we can assume that people just learning English would not be adequately helped by the sort of definitive resources designed to aid English users.

@Mitch There has been some disagreement on the matter. It has been suggested that the new closure reason should be read more strictly than the old one.

M.A.R.

May 3, 2017 14:28

@Tonepoet No, in our close reasons, we have context+research as a close reason

I told them a while ago in ELL.meta that we need a policy for obvious homework, but no one listened

People are slowly starting to VTC homework-ish questions as lacking research

It would've naturally happened

SO used to have a "too localized" close reason

It was misused often, and hence removed

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. I believe you were telling me that this closure reason wasn't utilized as often as the closure text would suggest.

M.A.R.

Soon enough, someone asked on meta.SO "please give us that VTC back". [status-declined]

But it's standing at six hundred votes.

Sometimes, you just have to downvote things, not VTC them

3

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. Yeah, the closure reasons got a major overhaul in 2013 due to abuse.

M.A.R.

Not every bad question is closable

@Tonepoet The research part wasn't. We always only closed questions that lacked research with it

However, with increased volume, the site is becoming more moderation-oriented than before

So the research aspect is gaining prominence

Tonepoet

@M.A.R. How long ago was this closure reason added anyway?

Was it just always there?

M.A.R.

May 3, 2017 14:33

And you start seeing questions that do have enough context, but lack research, get closed anyway

@Tonepoet It was present when I flagged my first question for closure

So maybe after public beta launched

Tonepoet

Strange...

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…

Participants