8

We clearly need a set of well thought out custom close reasons ("off-topic because…") to ease our lives.

Currently we only have one:

Questions requesting personal medical advice are off-topic here. Nobody here can properly address your health issues. Such questions should be taken to your personal physician who can examine you and access your full medical records. For more information, please see this meta post

Since the process for closing questions is meant to give the asker a chance to improve his question, a close-reason should fit the issues present in a question and give valid and valuable feedback to the poster. While this can be done with "I'm voting to close this question, because…" this is tedious to write out if we encounter the same reasons over and over again.

What custom close reasons would make things easier in your view?

Suggestions on this issue are not limited. But we should be aware that we can only select and keep active exactly 3, in words: three, reasons. These have to be very well phrased to catch most cases.

Note: there's a 400 character limit on the close reason. Please be judicious about the use of links and try to be concise in general.

also

As mentioned in https://health.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264/choosing-custom-off-topic-close-reasons

Some guidelines are:

At a bare minimum, off-topic reasons should identify a specific topic considered inappropriate. If you're struggling to be specific, find an example of a question that is off-topic and discuss the factors that make it inappropriate for the site.

Whenever possible, try to explain why a given topic is not allowed - this is your chance to answer the inevitable question once rather than repeating it every time a question must be closed.

Provide resources that will aid askers in solving their problems: either instructions for asking the question in a more suitable fashion, links to a different site where the question may be considered on-topic.

Be as concise as possible. Save lengthy explanations and examples for meta FAQs that can be discussed and refined over time, and then include links to these in the off-topic reasons. Don't depend on anyone following these links though; keep critical information and guidance in the reason text itself.

I have proposed close reasons below. Please:

  • Add additional answers including other close reasons.
  • Vote for the close reasons you think are appropriate and accurately reflect the scope of the site.
  • Comment on reasons that you think are basically appropriate but need an adjustment in wording.

To reiterate and explain, currently we have:

  • Questions requesting personal medical advice are off-topic here. Nobody here can properly address your health issues. Such questions should be taken to your personal physician who can examine you and access your full medical records. For more information, please see this meta post.
  • This question belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network
  • Other (add a comment explaining what is wrong)

Making "personal medical advice" one of the three slots to fill. There can be displayed 5 slots on that page, so we can just add two more now or add two and rephrase or replace our most beloved "personal medical advice" (not that I think we really should do that).

  • 2
    Suggestions on this issue are not limited. But we should be aware that we can only select and keep active exactly 3 ,in words: three, reasons. These have to be very well phrased to catch most cases. – LаngLаngС Mar 13 '18 at 23:08
7

Similar to what was set up on Psychology.SE (previously CogSci) this close reason I suggest would be for an

Unreferenced Question

This question is based on assumptions which are not made explicit, are not well-motivated (e.g., referenced), or are not held to be true within any of the research fields on-topic here. For more information, see [Why was my question closed as “not framed in the sciences of medicine”?](link to a new meta question with wiki answer)

  • Which of the current 3 would we replace? – Carey Gregory Dec 1 '18 at 19:10
  • 2
    @CareyGregory - This would be in addition to the 3 we have. This is a custom close reason. In Psychology.SE there is personal advice, not framed in the sciences..., belongs to another site then other reason. At the moment we have personal medical advice, belongs on another site and other reason – Chris Rogers Dec 1 '18 at 20:15
5

Lack of prior research has been added as a standard off-topic close reason.

  • I have noticed that it is hit and miss whether this new close reason option comes up or not and when it does it sometimes fails to be applied. It took several attempts on one question I was voting on within the last hour – Chris Rogers Feb 1 at 8:05
  • @ChrisRogers That's odd. I can't explain that. – Carey Gregory Feb 1 at 15:01
  • Are you having the same problem or is it just me @CareyGregory ? – Chris Rogers Feb 1 at 15:03
  • @ChrisRogers I haven't had an opportunity to use it yet. I'll let you know as soon as I do. – Carey Gregory Feb 1 at 15:09
  • 1
    I've used it twice now without problem. I think what you experienced was probably just a bump in the road caused by it being new. – Carey Gregory Feb 8 at 2:34

You must log in to answer this question.

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