Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!
Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.
Post History
Understanding question closure The main point I want to make here applies to Codidact as a whole, and possibly even to every Q&A site like it, even theoretically. Closure and deletion, followi...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
Karl Knechtel
·
2023-09-18T03:56:52Z (about 1 year ago)
- ## Understanding question closure
The main point I want to make here applies to Codidact as a whole, and possibly even to every Q&A site like it, even theoretically. Closure and deletion, following the model that our Seniors Elaborated for us, are separate steps. This is a deliberate design choice, and one that works very well with proper understanding. Closure is **injunctive, not punitive**. The purpose is to prevent overly "helpful" people from, for example, making guesses about aspects that should be made explicit, or writing disorganized streams of thought to attempt to answer other disorganized streams of thought. Inappropriately answered questions leave behind a mess that can confuse or distract future visitors. Deletion, on the other hand, is an actual cleanup step. In cases where closure [prompts automatic deletion](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/285197), this is primarily intended to deal with OPs who show no interest in fixing identified problems.- Closing questions is scarcely necessary at all at current Codidact posting volumes. However, **this approach simply doesn't scale**. By the time a site has reached Stupendously Overwhelming volume (and average levels of user clue), it would frankly be better for the most part if questions *started off* closed and required explicit clearance before the heavily-externally-motivated set got a chance to put on their guessing hats. (Of course, there are other mitigations possible here, such as [rethinking reputation (external link)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/387356/the-stack-exchange-reputation-system-whats-working-whats-not/387550#387550).)
- > since it seems like "I don't understand this question enough to answer - and no one else is allowed to try answering it either!"
- Sometimes these kinds of limitations are required to ensure everyone is on the same page, working towards a common, community-serving goal.
- As long as it's the base assumption on Codidact that the Q&A category is the default place to post (and the place that we hope search engines will prioritize), there need to be high standards for quality in questions. Quality questions beget quality answers, and a big part of assessing this quality is the **user experience of third parties** besides the person asking and the person answering. A healthy community has a purpose, and attracts more members of the sort that it wants by showcasing its progress towards its goals. For a Q&A site, that means building something [that other people want to look at](https://software.codidact.com/posts/285035/289176#answer-289176), and [paying attention](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/278552/289256#answer-289256) to that metric. We already know that the audience size [can reach into the millions](https://software.codidact.com/posts/284979/289212#answer-289212).
- If we're going to operate a "help desk", it would be better shuffled off to a separate category.
- ## Understanding question closure
- The main point I want to make here applies to Codidact as a whole, and possibly even to every Q&A site like it, even theoretically. Closure and deletion, following the model that our Seniors Elaborated for us, are separate steps. This is a deliberate design choice, and one that works very well with proper understanding. Closure is **injunctive, not punitive**. The purpose is to prevent overly "helpful" people from, for example, making guesses about aspects that should be made explicit, or writing disorganized streams of thought to attempt to answer other disorganized streams of thought. Inappropriately answered questions leave behind a mess that can confuse or distract future visitors.
- By design, therefore, the author of a closed question is able to edit it, and the question can be reopened once it's fixed. Where Some Other sites have come across as "unfriendly", this is largely a problem with *communicating* the consequences of closure to everyone.
- Deletion, on the other hand, is an actual cleanup step. In cases where closure [prompts automatic deletion](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/285197), this is primarily intended to deal with OPs who show no interest in fixing identified problems.
- Closing questions is scarcely necessary at all at current Codidact posting volumes. However, **this approach simply doesn't scale**. By the time a site has reached Stupendously Overwhelming volume (and average levels of user clue), it would frankly be better for the most part if questions *started off* closed and required explicit clearance before the heavily-externally-motivated set got a chance to put on their guessing hats. (Of course, there are other mitigations possible here, such as [rethinking reputation (external link)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/387356/the-stack-exchange-reputation-system-whats-working-whats-not/387550#387550).)
- > since it seems like "I don't understand this question enough to answer - and no one else is allowed to try answering it either!"
- Sometimes these kinds of limitations are required to ensure everyone is on the same page, working towards a common, community-serving goal.
- As long as it's the base assumption on Codidact that the Q&A category is the default place to post (and the place that we hope search engines will prioritize), there need to be high standards for quality in questions. Quality questions beget quality answers, and a big part of assessing this quality is the **user experience of third parties** besides the person asking and the person answering. A healthy community has a purpose, and attracts more members of the sort that it wants by showcasing its progress towards its goals. For a Q&A site, that means building something [that other people want to look at](https://software.codidact.com/posts/285035/289176#answer-289176), and [paying attention](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/278552/289256#answer-289256) to that metric. We already know that the audience size [can reach into the millions](https://software.codidact.com/posts/284979/289212#answer-289212).
- If we're going to operate a "help desk", it would be better shuffled off to a separate category.
#1: Initial revision
by
Karl Knechtel
·
2023-09-18T03:53:57Z (about 1 year ago)
## Understanding question closure The main point I want to make here applies to Codidact as a whole, and possibly even to every Q&A site like it, even theoretically. Closure and deletion, following the model that our Seniors Elaborated for us, are separate steps. This is a deliberate design choice, and one that works very well with proper understanding. Closure is **injunctive, not punitive**. The purpose is to prevent overly "helpful" people from, for example, making guesses about aspects that should be made explicit, or writing disorganized streams of thought to attempt to answer other disorganized streams of thought. Inappropriately answered questions leave behind a mess that can confuse or distract future visitors. Deletion, on the other hand, is an actual cleanup step. In cases where closure [prompts automatic deletion](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/285197), this is primarily intended to deal with OPs who show no interest in fixing identified problems. Closing questions is scarcely necessary at all at current Codidact posting volumes. However, **this approach simply doesn't scale**. By the time a site has reached Stupendously Overwhelming volume (and average levels of user clue), it would frankly be better for the most part if questions *started off* closed and required explicit clearance before the heavily-externally-motivated set got a chance to put on their guessing hats. (Of course, there are other mitigations possible here, such as [rethinking reputation (external link)](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/387356/the-stack-exchange-reputation-system-whats-working-whats-not/387550#387550).) > since it seems like "I don't understand this question enough to answer - and no one else is allowed to try answering it either!" Sometimes these kinds of limitations are required to ensure everyone is on the same page, working towards a common, community-serving goal. As long as it's the base assumption on Codidact that the Q&A category is the default place to post (and the place that we hope search engines will prioritize), there need to be high standards for quality in questions. Quality questions beget quality answers, and a big part of assessing this quality is the **user experience of third parties** besides the person asking and the person answering. A healthy community has a purpose, and attracts more members of the sort that it wants by showcasing its progress towards its goals. For a Q&A site, that means building something [that other people want to look at](https://software.codidact.com/posts/285035/289176#answer-289176), and [paying attention](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/278552/289256#answer-289256) to that metric. We already know that the audience size [can reach into the millions](https://software.codidact.com/posts/284979/289212#answer-289212). If we're going to operate a "help desk", it would be better shuffled off to a separate category.