In the code of conduct I read:

If you're here to help others, be patient, and welcoming

As I understand it, it does not just apply to what we write but also to what we do: namely voting to close a question or downvoting is not welcoming for newbies.

Of course there are still outright bad questions where the user didn't took care or not sincere. But there is also a grey zone where you can understand the question, but it's still somewhat lacking. I understand the Code of Conduct as that I should rather help improve the question instead of downvoting or voting to close if it's from a newbie (I wouldn't be so nice for an experienced Stack Overflow user).

The trouble is that naysayers are ruling: anybody more strict than I will vote to close, and I have no way to vote for keeping it open or balancing a close vote. Currently it has to go the full cycle, be put on hold and follow the unlikely reopen process.

I see that behavior as a contradiction to "Be nice and patient", and from comments I've read about Quora community on other social sites, this is as much an issue (or even more of an issue) as language for newbies.

Could we explicitly state in Code of Conduct that closing or downvoting a question that could be improved from a newbie is NOT being nice and patient. If explicitly stated it could moderate some over-enthusiastic censors.

  • 21
    Users who vote to close != "censors". I think you have the wrong idea about what censure actually is. – yivi Sep 21 '18 at 9:30
  • 17
    Closing and voting are quality control, they can’t be “unkind” or “unwelcoming”, or whatever other adjective someone unfamiliar with the system might assign to it – Clive Sep 21 '18 at 9:31
  • 4
    Could we explicitly state in the code of conduct that we don't vote on users or potential, but on posts in their current state, and that for appropriate moderation, the mantra vote early, vote often still goes? – Erik A Sep 21 '18 at 9:43
  • 7
    This is pretty much the reason why the CoC change was so controversial. SO users have an inkling what is going to happen next. It has to be done slowly, they first have to chase away a lot of people and that takes time. Give it two years or so. – Hans Passant Sep 21 '18 at 9:43
  • 20
    I'll agree with you in one point: the whole CoC thing tries to regulate how we communicate, but the main problem with some users perceiving the site as hostile has more to do with its intrinsic quality control mechanics than with actual rudeness (although that does exist as well). But the new kindness initiative won’t help make the site to be perceived as more welcoming because what these users object are the basic tools we use to moderate and curate the site. – yivi Sep 21 '18 at 9:48
  • 8
    I am a close vote and I find this offensive. :( – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Sep 21 '18 at 11:15
  • 18
    Usually, the CoC violation happens before the fast close. Using SO volunteers to look up answers that could be easily found from Google, easily available documentation, a newbie textbook or a 'Computers 101' tutorial site is massively unwelcome. SO contributors are continually being misused as a lookup service, a free drone army to do the mundane ditch-digging of diligent research - how welcoming is that? – Martin James Sep 21 '18 at 11:51
  • 10
    Could we actually make it clear in the CoC that closing and downvoting questions is not not being nice and patient? That being said, I agree that reopening questions should not be that hard, maybe reopening mjolnired questions could take only three reopen votes or something. – Félix Gagnon-Grenier Sep 21 '18 at 14:12
  • 4
    It really depends how you see 'welcoming' and nice, @kriss. You seem to see it as accepting to keep questions opened while they get reworked, others (me included) don't see a problem with closing the question, then engaging with the user nicely, politely and patiently, to get the question in a better shape, if possible – Patrice Sep 21 '18 at 16:18
  • 7
    'Ask people rejected from Stack Overflow hanging around on other sites' - why? They were rejected from Stack Overflow, presumably for persistently asking bad questions or behaving in an some other unaceptable manner. If they wish to lash out on external sites, there isn't much we can do about it, save just giving in to those who would abuse us:( – Martin James Sep 21 '18 at 16:19
  • 9
    These "Stack Overflow rejects" represent a group of people who either treated SO as a personal helpdesk or did not follow our code of conduct (since following the How to Ask guidelines are part of the CoC). No user, new or not, is entitled to having all their questions answered here. Calling our community "horrible and rude" after contributing negatively to a repository of high quality questions and answers is, at the very least, nonsensical and disrespectful to what we're doing here (for free, even). – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Sep 21 '18 at 16:39
  • 7
    @peterh 'censor' is a position that is salaried. – Martin James Sep 21 '18 at 16:51
  • 12
    ' most avid VtC voters are clicking close in more than 90% of the cases' well, I would not disagree that, on some says, (weekends, mostly), 90% of questions should be closed. It would be even better if those 90% got closed before some 500k cucumber answered them, but that's another issue. I do diasgree with the tags 'censor' and 'avid VtC voters'. I prefer 'curators' or 'user-moderators'. – Martin James Sep 21 '18 at 17:14
  • 3
    Can we please stop fast-tracking deletion of harmless Meta questions? This one is one vote away from both reopening and deletion, which feels like a clear sign something is going awry. – duplode Sep 21 '18 at 17:15
  • 7
    This question's deletion was appalling. As much as you can disagree with the question, proposed reflexion or I don't know what, deleting it was a really unnecessary step. Deletion is not for things one disagrees with. – Félix Gagnon-Grenier Sep 21 '18 at 18:24

Close-voting off-topic / unsalvageable / unclear questions is helpful.

It helps in maintaining the repository of quality questions and answers on Stack Overflow.

This isn't unkind, unwelcoming, censorship, rudeness, harassment, impatience or whatever.
It's quality control.

  • 1
    Easy to say, @Cerbrus, you're nearly never asking questions only providing answers. Try asking some question on a subject you're not mastering and see if asking a good question is that easy. This promotes false (rhetorical) questions. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 9:51
  • 8
    @kriss: like this question I asked about 2 languages I'm not experienced in? – Cerbrus Sep 21 '18 at 9:53
  • Its usually helpful. When the close votes and such are blatantly incorrect then it isn't very helpful. – user4639281 Sep 21 '18 at 15:53
  • 1
    While I agree the literal meaning of your answer, I strongly disagree its unsaid postulate, which declares the quality control unerring. My opinion is that the quality of the quality control of the site is not better as the quality of the questions of the rep1 users, and that it is an inherent and neglected problem in the system. – peterh Sep 21 '18 at 16:44
  • 5
    @peterh what? You are claiming that somewhere between 80 and 100% of SO moderation is bad? I dont see where it's claimed that quality control is unerring:( – Martin James Sep 21 '18 at 21:14
  • @MartinJames No. I am claiming that voting for closure in more than 90% of the VtC reviews is bad. – peterh Sep 21 '18 at 21:19
  • @MartinJames The result is that we have some avid VtC reviewers voting nearly always for close, and a minority being more lenient. What will be the fate of a question, depends mainly on luck. I think the only reason, why the SE allows is that we have simply too few VtC reviewers. In my opinion, some structural change should be applied on the system to deal with this problem. Honestly, I have 39k network-wide rep, and I still have to deal with a large fear before I ask a question. I simply can't believe that it is my fault. – peterh Sep 21 '18 at 21:22
  • @MartinJames Another funny thing is that my meta activities tend to attract main site downs, probably from users being in the first line suggesting suspension in discussions about voting irregularities. – peterh Sep 21 '18 at 21:25
  • 6
    @peterh: You're making some quite wild assumptions. I'm not suggesting the quality control mechanism always works. Even so, when it doesn't, the actions can easily be undone. – Cerbrus Sep 23 '18 at 6:21

Your issue seems to be with the word "patient". This word in that sentence does not mean "Give a question asker all the time they need to provide all details necessary to answer their question". They had all the time in the world for that before asking their question.

It means that when you're discussing a question or answer in comments, you should keep your calm when they don't seem to immediately understand you.

This means we should still downvote and close-vote unclear questions that show no research effort as soon as possible, so nobody wastes their time trying to answer it as they interpret (or guess) the problem.

See also How soon should I “vote to close”?:

preventing other users from answering is exactly why we close questions

  • Do you mean don't ask a question if you don't already have the answer ? Because for me it has been a long time since I couldn't find an already existing answer using google or digging around source code. Actually, the remaining unsolved questions are very likely to be too localised – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 9:55
  • 11
    @kriss: No. He means "don't ask a question if it's poorly researched or poorly written." – Cerbrus Sep 21 '18 at 9:56
  • 1
    I already had a discussion on meta about "preventing others from answering". I feel it as someone trying to decide for me what I should do. It is clear enough it's in no way an incentive to answer to another question on Stack Overflow. It's more like "hey: I typed hald of and answer" and some people decided to throw away the time I just spent because he doesn't see the question in the same perspective as me. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 9:58
  • 9
    You just need to get better at identifying what questions are high quality and on topic, and thus which ones are worth spending the time on. It doesn’t mean the current process isn’t working just fine – Clive Sep 21 '18 at 9:59
  • @Cerbrus: Yes "Don't ask a Question" That leads to a profile with more than 1300 answers and 7 questions. And mine of not much better. I don't believe that is a good balance. That is because it's structurally easier answering than asking. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:05
  • 3
    @kriss Not sure what you're getting at. If I have nothing I want/need to ask, because I can figure out all my problems by myself, and I have the capacity to help others sort out their issues too by answering, then I shouldn't participate…?! 🤷‍♂️ – deceze Sep 21 '18 at 10:06
  • 1
    @kriss: I'm not saying "Don't ask a Question". I'm saying a user that wants to ask a question should do research first, and make sure their question is properly written. How on earth is it a bad thing that I've answered a lot of questions? – Cerbrus Sep 21 '18 at 10:06
  • 3
    it's structurally easier answering than asking. Why is that relevant, though? Even if true, why should that have an effect on the speed or nature of our quality control? Surely that just means we need to keep questions under closer scrutiny, because they have greater potential to fall foul of the quality standards – Clive Sep 21 '18 at 10:10
  • @Clive: simple enough, newbies trying hard enough should be helped and welcomed not rejected. Because they are asking the real questions. Do you believe people don't improve over time and that content should have the same quality on a first post than after a few years of practise ? That implies for "quality controllers" to take it into account and be more patient or tolerant with beginners. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:19
  • 6
    Again, voting is not, and cannot be, “unwelcoming”. Your premise is fundamentally flawed I’m afraid. – Clive Sep 21 '18 at 10:21
  • 8
    @kriss I understand where you're coming from, and certainly, one needs to learn the ropes of SO at first. But not closing is not helping. That's sacrificing the entire system for the sake of not hurting a few feelings. Arguably SO's quality control mechanisms are exactly why everyone is using SO, because it's not Reddit or Yahoo Answers. And if you allow sub-par questions to newbies, they won't learn the ropes and continue posting sub-par questions (they will probably improve over time, but probably less so than if they're forced to). – deceze Sep 21 '18 at 10:26
  • @deceze: that's not the point, if we disagree on the subject if a question should be closed or not, say I believe it should be close because it's stupid, and you believe otherwise, the current mechanism is that I will be able to start the close process voting to close and you will just have to shut up (no way to say you believe the content is ok). Of course later, there is the reopening mechanism, but given the amount of material it's very unlikely you'll still be interrested enough to come back and vote to salvage it. I certainly wouldn't. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:31
  • @deceze: notice that it only applies on questions where quality control disagree, which are indeed exception. Most closed questions are really bad. – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:32
  • 2
    @kriss Well, to that end: meta.stackoverflow.com/q/298705/476, meta.stackoverflow.com/q/252010/476 – deceze Sep 21 '18 at 10:33
  • 9
    @kriss: You seem to have changed your focus. Your post was about whether closing question is "unwelcoming". You've now ditched that notion entirely, and you're focusing instead on the extreme minority of questions whose closure is debatable. That has nothing to do with being "welcoming" or not. – Nicol Bolas Sep 21 '18 at 12:49

In the code of conduct I read: "If you're here to help others, be patient, and welcoming". As I understand it, it does not just applies to what we write but also to what we do: Namely voting to close a question or downvoting it is not welcoming for newbies.

Your issue here is a fundamental misconception.

There's a reason a closed question shows as "on hold" for a while before actually showing as closed. There's a reason downvotes are reversible after edits. It's not actually impatient to downvote and close a question quickly, the process is then supposed to conclude with OP editing their question to be on topic, and then the downvotes may be reversed and the question reopened.

  • I mostly agree with you. But as I wrote the trouble is that it's impossible to say that you judge a question is already ok or nearly ok, because only votes to close are collected, not votes to keep it open. This way the only advice taken into account is from people rejecting a question, there is not way to accept a question (which of course wouldn't apply to really bad questions). – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:10
  • 3
    @kriss There's a way to reopen it, which completly negates the closing process. You do need enough people to agree on reopening though. – Magisch Sep 21 '18 at 10:35
  • 1
    I know of that, but it's totally different than "Voting to keep open" on the original question. Also there are some sheep effect with close: as soon as somebody do it, others usually follow. That should be balanced with a "keep open" button (that may also lead to some sheep effect of it's own). – kriss Sep 21 '18 at 10:39
  • 7
    And there’s also no way to “keep closed” a crap question which is on its way to being reopened. If you have one, you have to have the other, or you’ll introduce bias to a balanced system. And your “sheep effect” obviously works both ways too. For every “sheep” jumping on the close bandwagon, there’s another one jumping on the open bandwagon. – Clive Sep 21 '18 at 10:51
  • @Clive Or more than one, as, "being welcoming" means we shouldn't close their questions. – fbueckert Sep 21 '18 at 15:30
  • I would be surprised if you wouldn't know that being "held" and "closed" doesn't result any difference in the system. But, if you know this, and still you gave this answer, I think you understand my down now. – peterh Sep 21 '18 at 16:48
  • 5
    @peterh huh? There's a difference: when the question is "on hold" and edited for the first time, it will be sent to reopen queue automatically. "Closed" questions don't. – Andrew T. Sep 23 '18 at 7:46

If you're here to help others, be patient, and welcoming

Cleaning up the trash (vote close/vote delete) that those that disrespect the community by unapologetically posting an unending stream of garbage. Is helping others!, just not others you personally want, and down votes are the only accepted form of feedback that is intentionally impersonal direct way to give feedback on the quality of the content someone is providing.

That is how the site works, if you think that is unwelcoming to you personally or offensive to you personally, that is on you, so have fun on Quora or Yahoo Answers, because when that changes here, the entire site will finish its slow crumble into dust very rapidly.

The janitor/moderators of the site have earned the right to take out the garbage to protect the relative value of the gems they have contributed to the site.

The others that post hastily incomplete and/or incoherent cries for send me teh codez for extremely localized or easily solved issues with a step debugger or just searching for the title of the question on Google first with site:stackoverflow <title of crap duplicate question for the 100th time> are not more important than the others that will not have to sift through that garbage to find the actual gems of help they are looking for.

This is a perfect example of the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few and it seems you may have been one of the few sometime in the recent past, too bad about that, but that does not make everyone else some kind of hateful malicious troll that has spend hundreds of hours helping others for years, has a personal agenda out to get you in particular. (Where you is who ever thinks they are being personally persecuted.)

Which is better?

Immediate feedback that your question as worded is never going to be answered very quickly. Or that you question has been answered over and over with a duplicate and you can go on with your task!


Your question sitting there with no answers and no comments or feedback why until the roomba comes along and wipes it away a few days/weeks later.

  • I disagree with you, because that is not what close votes are doing. When voting to close it won't stop any garbage question: the question are already there. At that stage a direct triage mechanism dispatching question between queues would be much more efficient. Some questions are duplicates, others have to be improved, many should just be deleted. It's ok and it improves content. And by the way we should probably also have a queue for outdated questions. – kriss Oct 4 '18 at 11:37
  • Voting to close is part triage (because closer picks a closing reason), but also part punishing lazy asker by keeping them from getting response (but they often already have been helped anyway, for instance showing them the question is a duplicate). But the main effect is blocking answers. And that is pissing off answerers. This is crazy to believe people should be stupid enough to answer bad questions if left free, but won't be pissed off by the censorship and will answer some other question instead. – kriss Oct 4 '18 at 11:44
  • Also even if we want to keep some members (say newbies) from answering, setting different rep level to answer depending on the queue would be enough. And that won't stop rookies really wanting to answer a question to do it. – kriss Oct 4 '18 at 11:46
  • And also of course there is that double evaluation of question: if close if for avoiding bad questions, what are really question downvotes for ? Good questions that shouldn't be asked ? (But of course "close" helps getting helpful flag badge and downvote cost rep points). But the logical behind that double standard is really confusing. – kriss Oct 4 '18 at 11:49
  • @kriss (1) closing questions is not a preventive measure, it's a solution to the bad questions already in. There supposedly is a triage review queue, which is in dire need of improvements, but which have been deliberately put in stasis by the core development team. – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Oct 5 '18 at 13:21
  • @kriss (2) The whole point of closing questions is to stop it from receiving answers. Our modus operandi has always been to fix the question first, and answer it after. It's actually not crazy to believe that answerers will deliberately answer bad or duplicated questions, it happens all the time. As stated above, it's much easier to answer the 100th duplicate question than closing it as a duplicate. Answerers should be looking for good questions. If they choose to answer some other open, decent question, then our problem is solved! – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Oct 5 '18 at 13:21
  • @kriss (3) That sounds like a similar proposal to Would it be a terrible idea to split SO up into a tiered platform?, already discussed and shot down. It would have suffered from the same problems. – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Oct 5 '18 at 13:21
  • @kriss (4) That's a series of misconceptions, apart from the one I already said above: downvotes are a signal of quality, not only to the OP but especially to the rest of the answering community. Quality and appropriateness to the site may be correlated, but are given different curation mechanisms. Moreover, once a user has enough reputation to vote to close questions, one cannot "flag" for closure, and so no badges can be awarded from those alone (only the steward badge can be obtained from the review queues, which is not specific to closing). – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Oct 5 '18 at 13:22
  • @E_net: the triage queue looks like a good solution. Is it in statis because of implementation troubles ? – kriss Oct 5 '18 at 15:34
  • @E_net4: (2) at core I believe this is a newbie answering bad questions problem. I understand the risk of turning SO to a forum, which would be bad indeed. But a triage queue could solve it easily by raising the bar to answer depending on the queue. In the case of experienced SO users I believe it's counterproductive to block them answering questions because they disagree with the close patrol (if they don't disagree they won't answer). As far as I'm representative I won't ever answer another question after being shot in flight answering another which was closed. My time, not yours. – kriss Oct 5 '18 at 15:41
  • @kriss More about triage here. – E_net4 the Meta-RemoveR Oct 5 '18 at 15:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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