3

This came up before in 2019 and in 2017 but I want to restart the discussion.

Sometimes posts are closed and they need a bit of discussion to reach a state where they're ready to be reopened. I don't really think the current system is working as well as it could be. Currently it's something like:

  • Question is posted, and gets downvoted and closed.
  • There may be a scattering of people saying what they think the problem is and defending their reasons for closing, but not a lot of suggestions for improving it.
  • If there's a Meta thread, it usually focuses around whether the closure was wrong, rather than what to do next.
  • The question is usually abandoned, or it is reopened and gets a lot less attention than it might have.

StackOverflow has a new Staging Ground for new users to get feedback on questions, and while we can't opt into that program I'm wondering if we could benefit from something similar.

As I see it, the ideal system is something where:

  • Users can opt into it before posting a question they're unsure about, OR be directed towards it after posting a question that is closed.
  • Other users can ask questions if additional context is needed, give feedback on issues they have with the question, and suggest what changes would be needed to address those issues.
  • Whenever someone thinks their question is ready to go, they post it to the main site, or edit and ask-to-reopen.

I don't think this should be a structured system with official power--i.e., I think ultimately closing and reopening should work the way it does on all of SE. (I wouldn't want there to be a pseudo-mod who has the ultimate say on whether a question is good-to-go, or add "moderating the sandbox thread" to the duties of the mods.)

The main things I'm considering are:

  • A sandbox thread on Meta. Codegolf and Worldbuilding have these, and I think they share something in common with Phil.SE in that they're all at the border of what the SE formula supports.
  • A dedicated chat thread anyone can ask for help in. I created one here
  • A more structured "template" on Meta and if a question is closed, we link to that template and suggest that you might copy/paste that template to guide the discussion.

Obviously there may be more answers, or it might be that the current system is fine-as-is. I'll post the options I can see as answers for voting and detailed discussion, but please feel free to post your own answers.

2
  • IMO, the number of closed questions that both should have been closed, and are salvageable, is extremely low. If the question has salvageable flaws then it should have been edited by the close-voters instead of closed. If the flaws can't be fixed by a third-party minor edit, that means the only way to "fix" it would be to substantially change its meaning, in which case, just ask a new question.
    – causative Mod
    Commented Oct 9 at 0:35
  • 1
    Tnx Kaia for driving this. Ive made @Causative's comment which is an important point into an answer and added my comments above as notes and deleted the comments
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 9 at 3:37

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
1

Sandbox Thread

We could create a thread on Meta where each answer is a potential question. Edits/new answers would bump this to the top of Meta, and you can sort by recently-modified. Codegolf and Worldbuilding are good examples, and you can check the comments/answers for discussion of how well this solution is working on those communities.

Some benefits here:

  • Everything is neatly packed into one thread.
  • Everybody is already familiar with the SE model of answers/comments.
  • Tried and tested on other SE's, we could copy/paste one of their headers to use for our own. It's also the closest to the StackOverflow staging ground.

Downsides:

  • This only works if people make special effort to check the sandbox thread.
  • There is a fair degree of maintenance to remove inactive questions.
1
  • This is also a good idea, but is a function of the tolerance of the moderators. I tried to get creative with the utility of the meta side and the least participatory mod at some point just deleted my (admittedly defunct efforts) attempt to create resources for philosophical education on Meta.
    – J D
    Commented Oct 9 at 5:07
1

Chatroom

We could create a chatroom dedicated to fixing questions. If a question is closed, we can direct the discussion there for a more freeform, solution-oriented discussion. I created one here and you can see my proposed guidelines there.

Some benefits here:

  • This is the least disruptive to people who don't care. If you don't want to hear chatter about fixing a question, you can simply not join.
  • Sometimes what's needed to fix a question isn't being bombarded by a bunch of comments, it's having a discussion until everybody's more on the same page.

Downsides:

  • SE chatrooms SUCK, they're bad at formatting, they're bad at notifications, nobody uses them for a reason.
  • SE chatrooms only have one thread, meaning if there's two discussions happening at the same time, there's crosstalk.
2
  • SE chatrooms Suck. Understatement!!
    – Rushi
    Commented Oct 9 at 4:19
  • It's a good idea, but the medium, as you've noted, is somewhat inhibitory. Organizing multiple conversations in a single thread is a pain in the tuchus.
    – J D
    Commented Oct 9 at 5:04
1

Template for "Improve my question" posts.

We could create a template and encourage users to use it to solicit feedback on their post. For instance, a very minimal one might look like:

How to use this template.

If your question was closed, or you're seeking feedback on a potential question:

  • Copy the template below into a new question, and fill in the appropriate details.
  • blah blah instructions

If you see someone else's question is closed:

  • Canonical link: If you'd like, you can make a meta question following the [Question Workshop template]() and get help editing the question to follow the site rules.

Copy-pastable template:

My question, [<Title of your question>](<Link to question>) was recently closed as <close reason>. This is a [Question Workshop]()....

Sample:

My question, Is there a "hard problem of aesthetics" was recently closed as "needs details or clarity". This is a Question Workshop thread seeking help improving it.

Upsides:

  • Each question gets its own meta, so no crosstalk.
  • Hopefully directs the meta conversation to be more productive.

Downsides:

  • I feel like having a template risks being too "official"--again, I don't want this to be some Official Thing, just a community initiative.
  • Having a template feels insulting to experienced users, and I think many of us, myself included, occasionally ask a poorly phrased question.
1
  • I've gone back and forth on this, and I think it's a good idea if you can get the support of a mod to implement.
    – J D
    Commented Oct 9 at 5:09
-1

The current system

Nothing really stops anyone from employing any one of these strategies, and trying to formulate the one universally-useful question-feedback mechanism risks being too much work for an inflexible system. We can make an effort to be more solutions-oriented in our comments, but at the end of the day, what's happening now isn't the end of the world.

1
  • Those who are indifferent or accept the status quo aren't going to vote at all; your post presumes that change is a necessity.
    – J D
    Commented Oct 9 at 4:55
-1

IMO, the number of closed questions that both should have been closed, and are salvageable, is extremely low. If the question has salvageable flaws then it should have been edited by the close-voters instead of closed. If the flaws can't be fixed by a third-party minor edit, that means the only way to "fix" it would be to substantially change its meaning, in which case, just ask a new question.
Causative

This is certainly a worthy answer @causative; not a mere comment! This bifurcation between edit-able and hopeless questions gets much too little traction. Among other reasons, the current unsatisfactory status quo stays is because the available close reasons are abysmally bad.

To add further

I would like to highlight the point: Question is posted, and gets downvoted and closed. If downvoting and closing are regularly, continually mixed up I would suggest that is a symptom of a broken system — People are using VTC as a costless downvote See here. This is not how it works on other (more technical) SE sites. This is certainly not how its meant to be.

This is because there is no demarcation problem elsewhere — between (say) law and politics, between statistics and software etc etc., is clear-cut. Whereas in philosophy it's a fundamental unsolved problem. Expanded further here.

Also VTC's with disparate reasons add up!!

Analogy: Imagine an alternate physics world where 3 kgs + 10 meters = 13 °C

So this amounts to a system where a jury of five can say “I dont like this question; more simply I dont like you.” and throw out questions they dislike. See. If this system is fine we might as well make that de facto into de jure?

You must log in to answer this question.

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