This question already has an answer here:

A few minutes ago, yet another very broad question (now deleted) was posted by a brand new user. Some high reputation user voted to close the question as too broad, but simultaneously answered with a link to a Python tutorial.

While this should not be posted as an answer, it is indeed exactly what the new user needs: reading some tutorials.

This particular episode made me wonder: should we have a close reason that can include a link to some external resources? In particular, it could send a notification to the user that their question was closed because it is too broad, but that they are encouraged to read [some link to a tutorial].

The reasoning behind such a feature would be to try to reconciliate quality and kindness. We do close the question as it does not meet standards, but the user does not just see their question being closed without any explanation (to them).

marked as duplicate by gnat, cs95, HaveNoDisplayName, Robert Longson, Code Lღver May 21 '18 at 6:54


  • 3
    I'm not sure this would fit in the whole "focus on content, not user" mechanics on SO. Pointing to a tutorial for OP seems ideal in a comment. I suspect this would be abused a lot. – Andras Deak May 20 '18 at 23:40
  • 12
    This will simply encourage more too broad questions. As the logic will be "Why wasting time doing a google search, let me post a question on SO and someone will close it and give the link I need" – Temani Afif May 20 '18 at 23:40
  • 7
    That, or 'I did not get my answer. All I got was a useless link to stuff I don't understand from userXXXX. So , userXXXX is being hostile/unwelcoming, and is obviously the reason I didn't get my answer. I'll flag the comment as R/A and copy the comment and username to 'IhateSO.com' and totter/blog it'. – Martin James May 21 '18 at 5:49
  • This is not a duplicate. It is a matter of opinion that the accepted answer to the suggested question renders this feature request irrelevant by invalidating its premises. – duplode May 21 '18 at 13:00
  • That said, I agree with Makoto in that this would essentially amount to reinstating "Lacks Minimal Understanding" -- in fact, it might be even more prone to abuse than that, as people might be able to deflect criticism of its overuse by claiming they are doing a good deed. – duplode May 21 '18 at 13:04
  • Maybe I have not been around for long enough, an so I still have faith in new users, but I often enough I have seen new users thank people for pointing out to a tutorial in comments. So my guess is that legitimately did not know they should read a tutorial. Thus the difference between redirecting and not redirecting. The reason to make this the close reason and notify the user is that this should be what bubbles up above the comments, but not to the point of being a question. – Olivier Melançon May 21 '18 at 13:10
  • Stack Overflow vehemently hates link-only questions and answers; particularly if they are external links so why should close reasons allow it? As time passes, external resources can easily disappear. Just comment and move on. – MonkeyZeus May 22 '18 at 20:03
  • @MonkeyZeus Well, the difference with close reasons is that they are not there to stay. Typically, except for duplicates, we want closed question to be deleted, so the "link get broken" reason applies less there. – Olivier Melançon May 22 '18 at 20:06
  • And to add to my previous comment. The point of such a feature is that: a lot of users obviously do not read the rules and standards, get their question closed and leave frustrated. In this process there is no hook to educate the users who behave like that. A notification of close reason seems to be the closest point we have to that. – Olivier Melançon May 22 '18 at 20:15
  • @OlivierMelançon I do not know the exact criteria but not all closed questions are "roomba'd" so a link-only close reason could stick around long enough to become invalid. Additionally you cannot differentiate a tutorial site from just another forum which happens to have the answer so that close reason could get abused. Also, I am hard-pressed to believe that someone who couldn't be bothered to learn the basics of a language nor read about how to ask a good question is going to actually RTF(ine)M which they get directed to. – MonkeyZeus May 22 '18 at 20:19
  • I think that the dupe closure of your question is perfectly spot on because this behavior should not be encouraged as it would signal "Hey, you suck at Google-ing so harness the power of Stack Overflow to Google better than you can." – MonkeyZeus May 22 '18 at 20:21
  • Quite frankly, if their "throw hands in the air and give up moment" revolves around basic programming principles then I would rather that person not learn programming. I'm sorry but not sorry... – MonkeyZeus May 22 '18 at 20:23

Until someone tells me to stop saying this, I'm going to keep saying this.

It is our role to help, not to teach.

The OP in that question wanted someone to teach them what this meant. We can't help that they didn't know, and we don't have the luxury of time or resources to teach them. It is entirely the OP's responsibility to learn the unfamiliar parts and reach out for help when they need it.

There's no value in having this close reason, not just because it's not what we're here for, but also because it'll get widely abused. Questions which do ask some fairly beginner but not elementary things would get closed with this, and we'd have the same problem with this close reason as we did with "Lacks Minimal Understanding" back in the day.

  • 1
    Actually, please keep saying it after too. – Félix Gagnon-Grenier May 21 '18 at 14:10
  • Don't forget that it also goes against the Stack Overflow's fervor to avoid linking outside resources unless the valid chunks are added as content. If a closed question sticks around long enough then the external link could become invalid. – MonkeyZeus May 22 '18 at 20:01

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