Timeline for Are we closing questions too fast?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2016 at 21:54 | comment | added | Scortchi Mod | @AndreSilva: Thanks. That seems good enough. | |
| May 22, 2016 at 21:01 | history | edited | Andre Silva | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| May 22, 2016 at 19:59 | comment | added | Andre Silva | @Scortchi: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/199838/… | |
| May 22, 2016 at 19:33 | comment | added | Scortchi Mod | @AndreSilva: I didn't know that. Anyone know what it is? | |
| May 22, 2016 at 13:54 | comment | added | Andre Silva | About the close as duplicate notice, if my memory does not fail there is a message which will appear only to OP with guidance about what to do next. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 20:37 | history | edited | Silverfish | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
missing word
|
| May 21, 2016 at 18:24 | comment | added | Scortchi Mod | I like @gung's text for self study better than the close reason text. Perhaps we could change the latter. I don't know if we can edit the duplicate close reason text - gung's text is better for that too, as it does encourage editing when needed. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 15:11 | history | edited | Silverfish | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
small clarification
|
| May 21, 2016 at 15:10 | comment | added | Silverfish | On balance I still prefer engagement in this case (though, for the reasons you give, this isn't so clear-cut as for unclear/too broad) because (a) I like gung's suggested comment text (the one he links to), (b) I have found - as gung does - that quite a few OPs are quite receptive and responsive to it, and this avoids the close-edit-review cycle (which, as gung says in the comments above, is not very agile), (c) if the OP is confused about the requirements they now have a chance of human interaction via the comments thread. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 15:07 | comment | added | Silverfish | @Scortchi Yes I can understand that there is a cost/benefit thing to posting a comment beneath a question of any kind (one often ends up, over the day or so, engaged in a comment ping-pong that one might have been better without) and if the question is likely to be closed, and particularly if the automatically generated text is clear once closing is complete, one might be better off without it. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 13:41 | comment | added | Scortchi Mod | I was thinking about an answer but I agree with almost all of this one. The only thing I disagree with is the inclusion of self study among close reasons that usually benefit from being accompanied by specific guidance in comments - surely the automatically generated text is clear enough. Trying to cajole someone into making more than a half-hearted attempt to do their own homework is tedious & usually unsuccessful, whereas helping someone to clarify a real question is useful & rewarding. | |
| May 21, 2016 at 12:52 | history | answered | Silverfish | CC BY-SA 3.0 |