I've seen a few questions, including my own, being closed for being 'too opinion based'.

My question is, what's wrong with that? I think that in the SE philosophy opinion based questions are bad because they are not reusable - meaning they aren't any help for people visiting the site to find useful answers for their problems. However in this particular site it's hardly an issue - I don't see many people googling and finding answers they actually need here, since every case is unique and requires thought. that's the beauty of this site. It creates interesting, enriching discussions about people's ideas.

So if someone wants to discuss their ideas, where's the harm if their question is opinion based? Does it make it less interesting to discuss? Isn't interesting discussions the purpose of this site?

See for example these two question (with some of the highest scores in the site)

Both, I think you'd agree, are highly opinion-based, and the rating / acceptance of answers is also subjective and based on people's fondness of the answer more than anything else.

They weren't closed, though, presumably because they were so popular and interesting. If we use this selectively for unpopular questions, I think we shouldn't use it at all. People can just choose not to participate in discussions that are not hard-science enough for them, can't they?

Do we really need to close questions that are opinion based?


  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Questions should not be discussions - after all, that's the whole point of Stack Exchange! Opinion-based questions lead to discussions, not answers that can be somewhat objectively ranked and voted upon. $\endgroup$
    – HDE 226868 Mod
    Jul 5 '17 at 3:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Related answer to a similar problem on RPG.SE: This site is too heavily moderated, which mentions the official statement Optimizing for pearls, not sand. "That’s why we’re determined to keep question quality high, even at the cost of refusing a little sand. It’s true that you can’t have Q&A; without questions, but having the wrong sorts of questions is far more dangerous" and " in the long run we’d much rather err on the side of having interesting and on-topic questions" $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Jul 5 '17 at 6:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I certainly agree that there is a high degree of arbitrariness in this SE as to what qualifies as what and which thread should be closed. Is there any kind of checklist that a more opinion-based question has to fulfill? Maybe there should be. Would I go as far as to say opinion-based is opinion-based? Yes. $\endgroup$
    – Raditz_35
    Jul 5 '17 at 8:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Raditz_35 This blog post lays out the philosophy behind what makes a good subjective question on Stack Exchange. It includes guidelines for great subjective questions. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Jul 5 '17 at 14:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sphennings Thanks. But I think it would still be great if something was introduces specifically for this site since you have to be crazy to see a clear pattern in what thread lives and which one dies because of "opinion based" in some cases (not all of them). I do not want an extended discussion with a lot of examples since this isn't my thread $\endgroup$
    – Raditz_35
    Jul 5 '17 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus Remember every pearl needs a bit of grit, say, a grain of sand, for the pearl to form. This seems to me one of those philosophies which sounds good in theory, but devising ways of making it work well tend to go awry or getting the desired results instead it may not deliver. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Jul 6 '17 at 4:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Raditz_35 This a good point. Access to the criteria for voting to close aren't sufficiently accessible or made available to newbies. Not that the criteria are well understood by those who do read them or applied well. But if more WBers could access readily, decisions about opening or closing questions would be better made. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Jul 6 '17 at 4:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @a4android It's not about refusing all sand, it's about making sure that there are still enough pearls to be found in the sand so that they do not get completely lost. Not every question has to be stellar. $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Jul 6 '17 at 6:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus I wasn't, nor was anyone else, suggesting all the sand should be let through. Though definitely less than stellar bits of grit aren't closed down when they are effectively begging to be shut down. My objection is that the filtering going on isn't exactly what I'd call being well done. It's too hit and miss, and could be so much better. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Jul 6 '17 at 12:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @a4android I agree that it could be much better. Especially when I am looking at WB HNQ's I often find myself wondering how those are not closed. But a big problem when it comes to WorldBuilding is that we are very often not as scientific as other sites and therefore the line for what is and what isn't opinion-based is more blurry than on other SE sites. This leads to a lot of dissatisfaction because people don't see why one question is HNQ and another is put on hold immediately, because they are both on the blurry line which is more of a region than a line. $\endgroup$
    – Secespitus
    Jul 6 '17 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Secespitus I couldn't agree more. $\endgroup$
    – a4android
    Jul 7 '17 at 2:22

Yes, we should close opinion-based questions

You are saying that this site is about interesting discussions. But it's not. Every site on the StackExchange network is a Q&A that is aimed at helping people that have a problem finding a solution to said problem. The site is not meant to generate long discussions where people voice their opinions and develop ideas in an iterative and open-ended way.

But we are different

Now we come to a big problem: WorldBuilding is different from a lot of other sites on the network. On StackOverflow for example most questions are real-world problems that people have right now and where they need help as fast as possible because time wasted trying out things without any result is exactly that - time wasted. Which leads to money that is wasted, because for most of the active users there programming is their job.

On WorldBuilding things look a bit different. Chances are you found this site via a different site on the StackExchange network through the Hot Network Questions and thought that a title sounds interesting or funny. But we are still aimed at people needing help. People who are creating a world for their book, or their RPG campaign, or their game, or because they like to imagine things in their free time without any clear "goal", or any of dozens of other reasons. But they all have something in common: if you want to have an internally consistent world you will most likely at some point have problems. And this is when WorldBuilding.SE comes into play.

We are aimed at providing clear help. You have a problem? We have an answer!

The goal is not to brainstorm with you. You are the one creating the world - not us. You have a problem - not us. And it's not possible to help you get a clear answer if your question is aimed at starting a discussion. That doesn't work and as Molot referenced, there are a lot of forums out there that are better suited for open-ended collaborative discussions.

We will always be a bit opinion-based, but questions should still be written in a way that you can use somewhat objective methods to determine which answer is the "best" answer in the proposed scenario.

Drawing the line

Now we come to the real problem. Where to draw the line? What is "too opinion-based"?

Many people believe there is a razor thin line and that some questions cross this nearly invisible line and some stay on the "leave it open"-side. Looking at the Hot Network Questions from WorldBuilding I regularly find myself wondering how those are not closed immediately. There are so many better examples of good questions and answers on the site. Therefore I propose a different point of view on the "drawing a line" debate:

It's not a razor thin line - it's a big blurry region!

On WorldBuilding questions regularly are a bit opinion-based. And the opinions of users about what counts as "opinion-based" vary greatly. Even for a single user it can vary greatly depending on the topic asked. Maybe people are more lenient when a question is asking about planet-scale stuff than when it's asking about regional stuff. Maybe they are more lenient when it comes to weapon-design or creature-design than when it comes to tectonics. Maybe they are fans of exploring time-travelling ideas and problems or they favor any of the hundreds of other things that people ask about here.

This leads to a situation where your big blurry region does not align perfectly with my big blurry region. And there is no way to say which big blurry region is the "best" one. That happens on such a Meta-Point-of-View.

Sometimes certain words may trigger people to Vote-to-Close a question because they feel it "crossed their line". It's just that the question is on the "opinion-based" end of their big blurry region and there are certain words that they have seen too often in not acceptable questions. For example I know that I have to be extra careful when reading questions that use the words "How", "would", "this", "affect" and "society" in one sentence together with a question mark at the end. A question like this is very often opinion-based and too broad. Using those words in certain constellations might push a question that is on the "opinion-based" end of my "still acceptable" big blurry line to the "not acceptable" side. Realizing that I have this bias was not easy. And even if you had the same big blurry region as I have, but not this bias towards certain combinations of words, you might think this question is acceptable. Then we take another couple dozen people and see how their personal big blurry regions align with ours. And suddenly a question crossed the "razor thin line" of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

Comparing two questions with each other you might feel like both are the same and both are on your "acceptable" side, but maybe they are both on the big blurry region and a few people had a slightly different big blurry region leading to the question being closed.

Putting a question on hold is not the end

You can always start a Meta discussion to get a certain question reopened. And you also just cast a Vote-to-Reopen if you have the corresponding privilege. Everyone can only vote to close or reopen on any given question once and if you find enough people with a similar big blurry region you might get a question reopened that was deemed as off-topic by a different group before. If a question is closed and reopened multiple times this question is a perfect example for these big blurry regions. If you take enough people you will have used the whole possible spectrum, so the region becomes even more blurry. Sometimes it may depend on who is currently online and who is voting and in which mood they are and a whole ton of other factors that may lead to a question not getting closed when it should be closed and suddenly becoming an HNQ.

If you want open-ended opinion-based discussions you should check out the chat. We often discuss whatever comes to mind there and would be glad to have new interesting and funny conversations. The way things are handled in the chat just wouldn't work on the Main Site. StackExchange is not good at this kind of discussions, but the chat is a good place to talk, to discuss things and to get immediate feedback. And your stuff won't get closed or downvoted there just because you are brainstorming.

Old questions are not a good indicator for what is currently on-topic

I want to say a few words about your examples. First of all you have to be careful when reading old questions. Many of those are not what would now be considered on-topic. Often they are not closed because they were on-topic at the time and nobody bothered reactivating them once they were not on-topic anymore.

The same applies to Hot Network Questions. A lot of those are getting closed after a few days. But thousands of people have seen them until that happens and they have a lot of votes and often a lot of answers. Be careful when looking at the HNQ's of any site on the StackExchange network. Those rarely reflect what the site would normally deem a "good" question. They attract the attention, votes and answers of people who normally are not on the site and probably don't know specific details about what should be considered a good question on the site.

In my opinion both of your examples are perfect examples of what I just described. They are nearly one and two years old and looking at their views/votes/answers I assume they have been on the HNQ at some point. And I would say that both of them are opinion-based and should be closed by current days guidelines.

One of our moderators mentioned in the comments:

Santa/Satan was asked at Christmas as part of a topic challenge, that probable bought it some leeway at the time as well.

The challenge in question can be found here: Fortnightly Topic Challenge #23: Santa. This shows that other circumstances can contribute to a question being well-received, although it might not have been a great example for the site. In this case especially the timing and maybe the Meta Effect, though that is not such a big problem on WorldBuilding most of the time, as the traffic tends to not be that high.

Why don't you flag old questions in that case?

I wouldn't flag such old questions because they show what was on-topic once and it's not worth it to start discussions about such old questions that are not active anymore. That's one of the cases where my big blurry region wanders to the very lenient side and I go with the "live and let live"-approach that some people wish for the site in general.

It's different with active questions. They should represent what the goal of the community is. And if the current guidelines say that we want concrete answers to concrete questions then questions that invite people for brainstorming sessions are off-topic and should be flagges accordingly.

Optimizing for pearls, not sand

There has been a related answer to a similar problem on RPG.SE: This site is too heavily moderated, which mentions the official statement Optimizing for pearls, not sand.

That’s why we’re determined to keep question quality high, even at the cost of refusing a little sand. It’s true that you can’t have Q&A; without questions, but having the wrong sorts of questions is far more dangerous


in the long run we’d much rather err on the side of having interesting and on-topic questions

I agree with this sentiment. We should aim at having high-quality questions with high-quality answers. It's a personal take on why I am on this site. I don't want to read tons of half-baked brainstorming sessions. I want to read good questions with great answers that make me think "Wow, that's brilliant!".

Of course this is just one of the reasons I am on this site and a bit exaggerated. I want to help people who are having problems, but I am more of a reader than a writer, so for the current discussion the above is my personal sentiment.

This doesn't mean that we should disallow all sand and only look at the pearls. There are many mediocre questions that are worth reading and answering. But we should try to minimise the questions that we deem off-topic and allowing people to participate in open-ended discussions will only lead to everything being on-topic and thereby burrying the pearls we have under tons of sand, which makes it difficult to find the pearls, because everybody on the internet has an opinion and will voice it, especially when asked for it.

Don't take it too personal

Sometimes questions are closed where you are one-hundred percent sure that they should not be closed. And sometimes there are HNQ's where you are one-hundred percent sure that they should be closed.

And often you are right with that.

It takes some time for the "correct" judgment to be found and sometimes things slip through, reviewers have a bad day or some new people got some privileges and want to see how closing a question works without looking through too many Meta discussions. This happens.

Of course you shouldn't take these things personal anyway, especially if it's not even about your own questions. But I am pretty sure that everyone who has been active on the site for more than, let's say, a month or two has seen questions that he thought were great getting closed and feeling a bit disappointed, which is why I say "Don't take it too personal".


  • SE is not made for discussions
  • WorldBuilding is inherently opinion-based
  • There is no razor thin line, but instead a big blurry region and everybody thinks the region should be slightly different in size and shape than someone else proposed
  • Sometimes certain topics or words can trigger some people to think a question "crossed the line"
  • Just wait and see what the majority thinks
  • If waiting didn't resolve anything ask on Meta, come to the chat and Vote-to-Reopen
  • Old questions can be bad indicators of what is on-topic and what is off-topic
  • Try to aim for the high quality content - quality before quantity

Life is not black and white - there are a lot of different shades of grey that you have to live with

  • $\begingroup$ Eh, the second last entry should read "Don't take it personal at all" - because it is not. When I vote to close some question, i am judging just the text in the question body / title. There is no evaluation on the qualities of the asker. Death of author. Content is king. $\endgroup$
    – Mindwin
    Jul 11 '17 at 13:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Santa/Satan was asked at Christmas as part of a topic challenge, that probable bought it some leeway at the time as well. $\endgroup$
    – Tim B
    Jul 11 '17 at 13:36

It seems that most of your concerns are addressed in Good Subjective, Bad Subjective blog post.

The most important part for me is:

We never claimed that subjective questions were horrible abominations that should never be asked. We simply choose to forego those subjective discussions, as there were dozens upon dozens of forums which already catered to them.

but I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.


Having spent a lot of time on this site I find that the difference between a very popular question and a closed for opinion question is razor thin if any. More likely the popular questions just slipped by somehow while the opinion police were not watching.

Going over "Good Subjective, Bad Subjective"checklist on these questions does not yield any prediction on if the question will be closed or one of the top voted questions for the month. At the end of the day it feels like a couple of people who enjoy casting the close votes get to decide if they like the questions based on personal bias to the question, and not the idea of to broad.

Overall I think this is a problem across the entire stack exchange community. As a question is being closed there is no way to reopen it. Close requirements do not seem to strongly reflect the community's opinion. The only way for people to fight a close vote is to wait for a close and then vote to reopen. By then the questions are of the front page and are lost, and the only way to get a fair look is to post the question in meta.

This all arises from one thing. Things sometimes seem to broad or too opinion based to people who don't know the answer. Very often what seems like an open problem becomes very closed and tight the moment a good answer is given.

So while I think closing questions as too broad or too opinion based needs to happen, the community strongly needs to err in the direction of letting a question mature, and see if good answers bring things into focus.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Any question that has a close vote on it goes into a review queue. Anyone with permissions on that queue can review the question and they have the option to leave it open or close it. Not all questions that go into the review do get closed although I don't know the %. Only a diamond moderator close happens without anyone else getting involved, and even then other users can start a re-open vote and overrule the moderator. $\endgroup$
    – Tim B
    Jul 11 '17 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ @TimB I get that i have that privilege on Board&Card, but there is the problem. If 20 people look at a question 15 don't think to close it, but 5 think to close it, it gets closed. Then someone has to actively think about a reopen, by then the question is old news $\endgroup$
    – Andrey
    Jul 11 '17 at 14:42
  • $\begingroup$ @TimB I am only using my own question as an example because it was easy to find. No one can say that worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/85206/… is more broad than worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/20578/… $\endgroup$
    – Andrey
    Jul 11 '17 at 14:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your second example would be immediately closed if posted today. That was asked while we were still working out how to handle cases like that $\endgroup$
    – Tim B
    Jul 11 '17 at 15:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As soon as 1 person votes to close it goes in the close review queue. If it gets leave open votes from the review queue then it isn't closed. Everyone in the review queue sees it and gets to choose. Additionally even after all that clicking re-open is the same work as clicking to close in the first place and will send it into the re-open queue for essentially the same process but in reverse. In addition if the question is edited it also goes into the re-open queue so that people can see whether the problems have been fixed enough to warrant a re-open. $\endgroup$
    – Tim B
    Jul 11 '17 at 15:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .