Return to Answer

I like the idea, and I like the current phrasing. I think we'll end up with a system that operates more smoothly with this as a default option. I think having to type a custom comment is sometimes discouraging for people, and so they either go with migration (when it will just have to be closed on SO), or the "not about statistics..." option (which often isn't quite true).

I do worry about making the suggested text longer, but it would be nice if it could be more specific than "...it does not appear to meet their standards." I wonder if something like "...it does not appear to meet their standards (e.g., coding questions need a MCVE reproducible example)." I suggest this because I would guess 99% of the threads that don't meet their standards do not by virtue of lacking a MCVE.

Update:
Hmmm, I would prefer they be separate, but if you can only have three then we're stuck. Still, I would prefer the reasons be more distinct. The current text makes it possible that someone would misread it and slur the two reasons together. ('What do you mean that my programming question doesn't require any knowledge of statistics to answer?') I might try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain.

(The custom reason comment allows for 500 characters. If this reason must be 100 less, we get 400. My suggested text above is 377 characters.)

I'd still like to get the reproducible example in. We could also try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or routine operations in software without a reproducible example. If the latter, you could try at the links here.

That clearly required me to use very sparse text, but it is 395 characters.

I like the idea, and I like the current phrasing. I think we'll end up with a system that operates more smoothly with this as a default option. I think having to type a custom comment is sometimes discouraging for people, and so they either go with migration (when it will just have to be closed on SO), or the "not about statistics..." option (which often isn't quite true).

I do worry about making the suggested text longer, but it would be nice if it could be more specific than "...it does not appear to meet their standards." I wonder if something like "...it does not appear to meet their standards (e.g., coding questions need a MCVE reproducible example)." I suggest this because I would guess 99% of the threads that don't meet their standards do not by virtue of lacking a MCVE.

Update:
Hmmm, I would prefer they be separate, but if you can only have three then we're stuck. Still, I would prefer the reasons be more distinct. The current text makes it possible that someone would misread it and slur the two reasons together. ('What do you mean that my programming question doesn't require any knowledge of statistics to answer?') I might try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain.

(The custom reason comment allows for 500 characters. If this reason must be 100 less, we get 400. My suggested text above is 377 characters.)

I'd still like to get the reproducible example in. We could also try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or routine operations in software without a reproducible example. If the latter, you could try at the links here.

That clearly required me to use very sparse text, but it is 395 characters.

I like the idea, and I like the current phrasing. I think we'll end up with a system that operates more smoothly with this as a default option. I think having to type a custom comment is sometimes discouraging for people, and so they either go with migration (when it will just have to be closed on SO), or the "not about statistics..." option (which often isn't quite true).

I do worry about making the suggested text longer, but it would be nice if it could be more specific than "...it does not appear to meet their standards." I wonder if something like "...it does not appear to meet their standards (e.g., coding questions need a MCVE reproducible example)." I suggest this because I would guess 99% of the threads that don't meet their standards do not by virtue of lacking a MCVE.

Update:
Hmmm, I would prefer they be separate, but if you can only have three then we're stuck. Still, I would prefer the reasons be more distinct. The current text makes it possible that someone would misread it and slur the two reasons together. ('What do you mean that my programming question doesn't require any knowledge of statistics to answer?') I might try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain.

(The custom reason comment allows for 500 characters. If this reason must be 100 less, we get 400. My suggested text above is 377 characters.)

I'd still like to get the reproducible example in. We could also try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or routine operations in software without a reproducible example. If the latter, you could try at the links here.

That clearly required me to use very sparse text, but it is 395 characters.

I like the idea, and I like the current phrasing. I think we'll end up with a system that operates more smoothly with this as a default option. I think having to type a custom comment is sometimes discouraging for people, and so they either go with migration (when it will just have to be closed on SO), or the "not about statistics..." option (which often isn't quite true).

I do worry about making the suggested text longer, but it would be nice if it could be more specific than "...it does not appear to meet their standards." I wonder if something like "...it does not appear to meet their standards (e.g., coding questions need a MCVE reproducible example)." I suggest this because I would guess 99% of the threads that don't meet their standards do not by virtue of lacking a MCVE.

Update:
Hmmm, I would prefer they be separate, but if you can only have three then we're stuck. Still, I would prefer the reasons be more distinct. The current text makes it possible that someone would misread it and slur the two reasons together. ('What do you mean that my programming question doesn't require any knowledge of statistics to answer?') I might try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or performing routine operations within a statistical computing platform. If the latter, you could try the support links we maintain.

(The custom reason comment allows for 500 characters. If this reason must be 100 less, we get 400. My suggested text above is 377 characters.)

I'd still like to get the reproducible example in. We could also try:

This question appears to be off-topic because EITHER it is not about statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, or data visualization, OR it focuses on programming, debugging, or routine operations in software without a reproducible example. If the latter, you could try at the links here.

That clearly required me to use very sparse text, but it is 395 characters.