7

I'm not a regular of this site, this answer will be --at best-- a general advice, further ideas should be discussed by the site's regulars. Stack Exchange has a special lock, "historical lock" for this particular case. To summarize it, What is a historical lock? A historical lock is a mechanism by which moderators can mark posts as historical ...


4

I couldn't decide if I wanted to put this in as an edit or an answer, but after going through several questions tonight, I thought I'd throw it up here. We only have 1 of our 3 canned off topic options occupied right now. I propose the following off topic VTC as a middle ground: "This question is off topic because it concerns an unsourced or ...


4

Yes, you can. A "leave open" vote isn't really a vote, it's a way of signalling to the site's software that you don't think this question should be reviewed for potential closure. If enough "leave open" votes are cast, the question will be removed from the "close votes" queue, but you or anyone else can still vote to close it by visiting the question and ...


4

Such edits are clearly conflicting with OP‘s interest. I would have rejected such an edit if it came up anonymously in an edit queue. I think the appropriate solution would be to ask the 90% redacted question yourself, or comment and explain to the OP how it can be salvaged.


3

I'm going to start my reply and add more later when I have more time. I have been struggling to find a clear rule for whether a question that starts as personal advice could be salvageable or not. I'll use a couple of recent questions to illustrate why one I rewrote/answered, and one I VTC'd without any intention to reopen: With a question like "is the ...


3

TL;DR: Don't close questions because they don't show research effort; that's the wrong tool. I come from far far away on the Stack Exchange network, and I've only just come across this. However, there's something going on here which I need to point out. Scroll back up to the question. Hover over the downvote button. Read the tooltip. Go on, see for ...


3

I don't think that strict rules and close voting are a good way to enforce research effort. My big suggestions would be: Close conspiracy theory questions. Probably add a custom reason for this; it's common enough. Close general reference questions. Probably add a custom reason for this too. Close everything else that's known bad. "Too broad" and "unclear ...


3

Researching a question before you post it is a very good idea. However trying to measure the amount of research that was put into a question from reading the post can be impossible depending on the amount of information found. If it is a question about something where there is not a lot of information available, either outside of certain areas or at all, a ...


2

As the answerer, I'm obviously biased. In addition, I don't consider myself an involved member of the community any more, and when I was, I held very firm beliefs (like reliable sources *that actually support what you are stating, which was an actual problem). None of that matters any more. If the community doesn't want to accept an edit from anyone other ...


2

See this posting and answers on meta.stackexchange. The problem with having bad questions answered is that relatively new users who have little idea on how this site works may provide answers when they shouldn't because the question is unclear and an answer could muddy the waters or it is asking for advice on a medical concern and a low rep member may (just ...


2

I agree with the above that we need to decide on consistent approaches to these things, maintaining transparency. (This answer is not in opposition to, but in addition to Narusan's.) But what about questions that have a good fundamental question buried in personal advice request etc? Instead of closing all off-topic q's, experienced users can heavily ...


2

First, let's note that you posted a comment on that question that was indeed quite rude and abusive to another member (not me). I deleted that comment and I admit it probably did negatively influence my attitude toward your question. I also admit that my "we're not a google this for me" comment was rude, so I've deleted it as well. In another comment on the ...


2

Excellent question and I now think the answer is a resounding no. We should not try to edit requests for medical advice into something they're not.


2

I like the logic tree in @AtlLED’s answer and I think that we all need to follow some sort of method to enforce prior research when asking questions. I am also an active member of Psychology.SE where, being also a science-based site, they actively insist on prior research. Now we have rebranded to Medical Sciences I think we need to follow suit. In my ...


1

The answer should be: it depends. If a question is borderline off-topic or a trivial or easy edit might salvage it, then we should try this in most circumstances. As long as the general gist provided by the OP is preserved we should not exclude this possibility. But it is of course far more preferable to follow standard procedure and put every such ...


1

I don't want to go ahead and enforce some rules without prior agreement here: We have two options (I will just use DoctorWhom's answer as an example) Leave the answer as it is and upvote it if it is good Encourage users to post comments instead. An example comment instead of this answer: Abscesses can be very dangerous. However, no one online can ...


1

I only get on the site every 3-4 months, but I'm working through the queue now, and it's always been atrocious. I'm sure I'll be hitting my review limit. There is a rep problem, and I suggest we go through users with several answers under their belts and try to up-vote the worthy ones a lot as a community. You might think "eh this seems like a +4 answer," ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible