Skip to main content
Cross Validated

Return to Answer

reworded to better address Tim's comments
Source Link
Andre Silva
Andre Silva
  • 3.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 53

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggestNo, we keep 'asking for datasets'shouldn't.

  If it'asking for datasets' close reason has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or (pretty much the othersame way as 'opinion-based' has, then OK to replace itthe second least used topic).   

However, it is possiblethe idea of splitting the 'not about statistics' and 'pure programming is' good. Despite initially declined, we can try to insist with the SE staff to have a 4th close reason (there is a tendency foras many other SE sites to use one; GIS and Database Administratorsalready have one). Moreover, sooner or later that close reason will be broadened to include other types of shopping list questions here in CV SE (we can observe a shift in how users perceive such types of questions are in course; recent example).

 

Going either way (removing or not removing, splitting or not splitting), I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported (reported in Extract software-specific default close reason):

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting itif split occurs, that it'not about statistic' would rank 3rd (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space)order:

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChIenter image description here

The picture also illustrates the dialog has space for adding more topics if we want to.png

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'.

  If it has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or the other, then OK to replace it.  However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (there is a tendency for many SE sites to use one; GIS and Database Administrators have one).

I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

No, we shouldn't. If 'asking for datasets' close reason has been used, it has been useful (pretty much the same way as 'opinion-based' has, the second least used topic). 

However, the idea of splitting the 'not about statistics' and 'pure programming is' good. Despite initially declined, we can try to insist with the SE staff to have a 4th close reason (as many other SE sites already have). Moreover, sooner or later that close reason will be broadened to include other types of shopping list questions here in CV SE (we can observe a shift in how users perceive such types of questions are in course; recent example).

 

Going either way (removing or not removing, splitting or not splitting), I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use (reported in Extract software-specific default close reason):

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming if split occurs, 'not about statistic' would rank 3rd (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog order:

enter image description here

The picture also illustrates the dialog has space for adding more topics if we want to.

added 1 character in body
Source Link
Nick Cox
Nick Cox
  • 59.4k
  • 1
  • 30
  • 58

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'.

If it has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or the other, then OK to replace it. However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (itthere is a tedency intendency for many SE sites to use it;one; GIS and Database Administrators have itone).

I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd place (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'.

If it has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or the other, then OK to replace it. However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (it is a tedency in many SE sites to use it; GIS and Database Administrators have it).

I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd place (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'.

If it has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or the other, then OK to replace it. However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (there is a tendency for many SE sites to use one; GIS and Database Administrators have one).

I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

not possible to edit blatantly off-topic close reason (which will only appear to <3k rep users: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/283348/what-happens-to-questions-closed-as-blatantly-off-topic and https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/300056/why-are-there-two-different-close-reasons-for-);
Source Link
Andre Silva
Andre Silva
  • 3.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 53

I endorse Nick Cox's answer[Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to one of thesethem), except we should sacrifice 'asking for datasets' if we believe it is still useful in CV SE (which seems to be the case)except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'. So, agreeing with Glen_b's comment:

Personally, I'd much rather keep the data sets close reason and expand the number of reasons by 1 even though that means some additional effort.

'Asking for datasets' was not the most used close reason in past 90 days, butIf it has worked providing detailed feedback to OPsbeen used (and has helped reducing the backlog of off-topic questions). 'Opinion-based' haseven it is not been used sotoo much as well), still it is default in all SE sites I participate inhas been useful.

That said I suggest If we EITHER insist with SE staffreally had to havechoose between one or the 4th close reason option. In GIS SE we were ableother, then OK to getreplace it (see. here)However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (so as otherit is a tedency in many SE sites to use it; GIS and Database Administrators have it). We have plenty of space in the dialog:

enter image description here

ORI also suggest we rewritereorder the 'Blatantly off-topic' close reason. In this case I agree with Catija's answerreasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

That said, I wonder if you could rework your more generic "this isn't about statistics" close reason to include this somehow. I'm not sure what sorts of questions it tends to catch but it reads like the default "blatantly off topic" close reason

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd place (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

I endorse Nick Cox's answer (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to one of these), except we should sacrifice 'asking for datasets' if we believe it is still useful in CV SE (which seems to be the case). So, agreeing with Glen_b's comment:

Personally, I'd much rather keep the data sets close reason and expand the number of reasons by 1 even though that means some additional effort.

'Asking for datasets' was not the most used close reason in past 90 days, but it has worked providing detailed feedback to OPs (and has helped reducing the backlog of off-topic questions). 'Opinion-based' has not been used so much as well, still it is default in all SE sites I participate in.

That said I suggest we EITHER insist with SE staff to have the 4th close reason option. In GIS SE we were able to get it (see here) (so as other SE sites). We have plenty of space in the dialog:

enter image description here

OR we rewrite the 'Blatantly off-topic' close reason. In this case I agree with Catija's answer in Extract software-specific default close reason:

That said, I wonder if you could rework your more generic "this isn't about statistics" close reason to include this somehow. I'm not sure what sorts of questions it tends to catch but it reads like the default "blatantly off topic" close reason

I endorse [Nick Cox's answer][1] (that we should split it is not about on-topic subjects from programming questions AND not join any other close reason to them), except I suggest we keep 'asking for datasets'.

If it has been used (even it is not too much), it has been useful. If we really had to choose between one or the other, then OK to replace it. However, it is possible to have a 4th close reason (it is a tedency in many SE sites to use it; GIS and Database Administrators have it).

I also suggest we reorder the close reasons in the dialog from top to bottom according to their frequency of use, reported in Extract software-specific default close reason:

  • programming;
  • self-study;
  • not about statistics, machine-learning, etc.*
  • asking datasets;
  • blatantly off-topic (for <3k rep) / other (>=3k rep) .

*I am assuming that after splitting it, that it would rank 3rd place (but this could be reassessed after some time with real data).

Here is the current dialog (it still has plenty of space):

[![enter image description here][4]][4] [1]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list/5608#5608 [2]:https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5607/should-we-remove-the-datasets-close-reason-from-the-list#comment17366_5607 [3]:https://gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4977/adding-bug-reports-to-off-topic-close-reasons-dialog [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/mWChI.png

Source Link
Andre Silva
Andre Silva
  • 3.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 53