Is it Fair to Encourage People to NOT Answer Questions that Need to be Closed?

Question

Introduction:

WB.SE has a SE mandated format; the community has determined that certain rules need to apply to the asking and answering of questions; the community has in place certain policies & practices designed to make the forum an excellent place to ask and answer questions. One of these practices recently came under scrutiny and I thought it a good idea to query the community in Meta.

Some people think this is yet another policy discussion. Some people think this is a call to create yet another rule. It is not. This is a question about a particular kind of practice that a number of community members engage in. It is essentially a "yea or nay" question, a non-binding question.

General Context

As a way of moderating a relatively large & active creative forum, one of the tools every member has is to make use of the comments below each query and each response. Mostly comments are used to ask for clarification or to provide updated information so that an edit can be made to improve a post.

Sometimes a post is published untimely: perhaps it's a question that wasn't well thought out or maybe a question that should have been asked elsewhere; maybe it is a response that doesn't really answer the question or that is spam.

The general practice has always seemed to be to remind both the specific poster and the rest of the community that a) there is a problem with the post and b) not to make matters worse until the problems can be sorted out.

Specific Context

It is already community practice to not answer "bad" questions -- those that need to be edited for any of a variety reasons that I won't go into at this point.

• Please Don't answer and/or upvote “bad” questions (yet)
• How do we know if a question is "good enough" for us to be ALLOWED to answer it?
• What to do about trivial questions?

Regarding this question about PTSD after being attacked by knife, I asked the single respondent (and by extension, the community) to not answer questions that obviously need some work. In retrospect, there are a number of potential issues with the question. I happen to have chosen two.

This Meta discussion asks to gauge the appropriateness specifically of reminding community members of our policy not to answer poorly worded questions in the context of our more generally established community practice of reminding community members to be mindful of other WB rules, policies & best practices.

Points in Favour:

As a pro rogationem, specifically to the point of timely closing of bad questions and being consistent with community policies, I'd like to quote one of sphennings's comments:

• That's a compelling argument for swiftly closing questions. Ideally a question should be closed before anyone answers it. We should be consistent with our policies on this site. If we didn't close question just because they were popular new users would get mixed signals about what makes a good question on this site. – sphennings Oct 25 '17 at 22:09

I would take this to mean that the ideal situation is one where a post of questionable quality is closed quickly, before any responses can be made, in order to allow the OP to edit it. I would also take this to mean that, in order for this to happen, the community needs to be aware of rules & policies and needs to exercise some self-restraint when it comes to these kinds of questions; and by extension, occasional reminders are useful in general.

Another point in favour is to be found in the comment to Ash's response below. I noted that one of the comments to his question actually does the same fundamental thing: presents a reminder to community members to be mindful of WB norms and practices before engaging in some action, in this case, close voting.

• Reminder to Close-Voters: Please explain why you are voting to close so that the OP can fix the problems that you see. He can't fix them if he is not aware of them. Personally I think this is a reasonable question.

I take this to mean that the commenter assessed the situation and found it to be problematic; and also that the commenter thought the best response would be to issue a reminder of how close voting ought to work in this situation.

Question:

Essentially what it says on the box: following from the quoted policy and practice: is it fair to remind people who have answered these questions to not answer questions like this in future or not as a matter of general practice?

Conclusion:

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In other words, we often gently remind others to pay heed to this or that forum rule or policy. Since this is not a rule or policy proposal, I say nothing about whether or not everyone must comply; I say nothing about goals or numbers or any kind of punitive action. But I do think it's fair to issue this kind of reminder, since we make other similar reminders.

Answer 1

As a user of this site, and as a moderator, I've seen a number of questions that received close votes for being 'bad', that to me as a subject matter expert in certain areas were eminently reasonable and well-asked.

So, just because people are VTCing or even downvoting doesn't mean that the question is bad... just that certain members thought it was bad.

I would encourage people who think that a question is bad to vote and leave comments requesting whatever information they believe is missing or to say why they don't think that it can reasonably be answered.

However, if another member thinks that the question is good, there's no reason why they can't answer it, regardless of the comments or downvotes. Maybe they know something that the rest of us don't.

I think that it's pretty reasonable to say that a truly bad question will be rapidly downvoted and/or closed.

As an example of a question that was downvoted and VTCd, I offer What are the evolutionary factors that could create a species that looks like E.T.?. It was VTCd as Too broad, and received one downvote, but after my comments and answer, ultimately wasn't closed, and received some upvotes. As I wasn't a moderator at the time, it wasn't my red diamond which influenced people either.

Answer 2

Let's not become the Thought Police.

Given the site we are let's start with a quote from Babylon 5 :

I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light.

(if that predates Bab5 please let me know - I'd be interested).

Common sense : Every single person on the site is going to have completely different interpretations of when a question is "fixed" or even if it needs "fixing".

Or for that matter how long a reasonable time to wait is. What if there are no immediate objections ? Do they wait five minutes ? An hour ? A day ? A week ? When is it "safe" or "approved" to answer ? It's nonsense to suggest waiting.

Everyone on the site stands in "Grey" and not even the same grey.

following from our policy of not answering queries that, for any reaso n, look like they need to be fixed, should we encourage people who have answered these questions to not to answer questions like this in future or not as a matter of general practice?

No.

Let's not act like thought police.

People are not only entitled to answer it before it is closed, they're entitled to disagree with the closure. They can (and sometimes do) vote to reopen questions deemed "wrong" or "bad". It's a democracy. They can do that.

People answer in good faith. This daft idea means we're treating them like rule breakers who need to be publically berated.

We even do get and do answer questions on Meta asking for explanations of why questions were closed. And sometimes, horror and shock, we actually find the closures was possibly wrong. The system isn't perfect !

So, no, let's not irritate people for giving one of the two things that the site needs : answers.

We come here to help people. The proposal punishes people (annoys them) for trying to do just that.

No. Just No.

These rules are not some crystal clear code that anyone can follow. The nature of this site means that such a rule set is impossible. We'll always have different people making different interpretations of the rules.

No harm is caused by answers to questions subsequently closed. None. They'll hardly even dent server space usage or search times. They might even help people with a similar problem and stop them having to post a new question. They may actually be useful.

So, No. Let's leave them alone.

Answer 3

I've been around for a number of years now and one thing that I've noticed is that what constitutes an acceptable question is an amorphous thing. Previously perfectly acceptable questions with hundreds of votes are being closed by the new generation of users for one reason or another.

So no, we should not attempt to discourage people from answering questions they think are answerable outside the existing mechanics. Questions are either open or they are closed and can be answered or not accordingly.

Answer 4

I've got to chime with Monty on this one, I've had at least one question closed because the people who saw it first just didn't understand it and thought I hadn't included the information necessary for it to be answered. Then when I came back a couple of days later the question had been reopened, has two excellent answers and a note from the mods saying that I'd done a good job and gently reminding people that "I can't answer this" is not the same as "this question is bad". I've been on the other side too and seen questions on the closure list that look bad to a lot of people but make sense to me because I have the specialist knowledge base. That's not to say there aren't questions that clearly don't warrant the effort but that's the choice of people who answer them.

Answer 5

TL;DR : Jump to the last paragraph for the conclusion and practical cases. But don't forget to breathe, skipping things can be a sign of having a constant turning around and upon you ♪. Or that I'm boring, either 🦋.

I like to take things the other way round, so here's the path I take :

Let's look at the core question in the question's body : Should you ask people to avoid answering bad questions? It goes beyond what people think in reaction to the question, and it's easy to miss a few things out.

Setting the premises on

It's simple to understand, but it's harder to feel it, so let's get back to basics! From the help center, section "how do I write a good answer" :

Answer well-asked questions

Not all questions can or should be answered here. Save yourself some frustration and avoid trying to answer questions which [are unclear, opinion-based, duplicates, need focus, off-topic]

This is an explicit, official ruling, and so should be respected. To be followed, it needs to be known and recalled from time to time. As this recurring nice comment shows, having a single paragraph lost in a help center with >20 sections doesn't seem to be enough :

Welcome to Wordbuilding SE! You may want to take the tour and peruse the help center, in order to become better acquainted with the goals and expectations of this site.

^{Welcoming and ack-knowledging, by AlexP (though there are many, many others examples reminding people to reach for the help-center).}

So, yes, to ensure people follow this rule, we should recall people to not answer badly written questions. Or should we?

Epic battle of viewpoints!

A point that seems to stand amongst people that would disagree with the previous sentence is that answerers takes some of their free time to help others, so telling them to not answer will be badly received, in all due cause. It's about the same thing as you don't yell out loud at the man who brought you the wrong item from a shelf you couldn't reach.

But most importantly, the issue is that one would think a question should be closed, and the answerer did not in all honesty! It usually happens when a question is in the quality's grey area. This makes it really hard to say to them they did something wrong -whether it's objectively true or not-, since from their point of view, they didn't. They don't understand, and unless they're painting happy little accidents daily, it's very likely to lead to some confusion, if not tough resistance. All for understandable and acceptable reasons from their point of view.

I can only agree with the above points, and it has to be taken into consideration to avoid being inconsiderate to others.

So! To help recall this rule without striking at the answerer's feeling, let's remember three things :

1) Answerers are not forced to post right now

First and really important because it's needed for the other points, people are not forced to answer right now.

If there's a debate on-going on a question you wish to answer, you can just wait a little where it goes. After all, closure should happen quickly! Or if you're more invested, talk it out to make your point before answering.

I see a lot of people telling the reasons they're closing a question. But interestingly, I see many fewer people answering soon-to-become closed questions telling why they found the question's quality to be high enough to answer. As much as everybody want as few closed questions as possible, it's not on the closing's side to give counter-arguments to their closure reasons. At most, they can give directions to improve. Defending the question is more like the task of the ones who thought it worth answering!

2) The asker's question is burdened by the answerer's action

Let's not forget the negative aspect of answering questions without taking the time to think about the question. By doing so, it often prevents further edition of the question when it gets closed. Question whose purpose is to help the asker. It makes it a lot harder to edit it while keeping the answer valid, and since the question has been posted, it makes it harder to post a new similar-looking one. It is especially true for newcomers who are more prone to write questions that need improvements, have an harder time improving them, and that can get discouraged much more easily.

Therefore remember to whom the added weight belongs to and don't reverse the responsibility; Even if the asker didn't do things as expected, it's the answerer who's taking the responsibility of answering. And as such, the help-center quite clearly defines how answering bad questions runs the risk to be felt as :

Save yourself some frustration...

As the answerer, save yourself the frustration of getting your work invalidated or be a weight to the asker. If you took the step to help, burdening the asker is not what you want, or so I guess. It's not to follow a silly rule that makes no sense, it's to save everyone from the trouble a question's stunlock can make. It's something that can be done to help people either delete and repost their question later or reopen them, very lengthy processes that could definitely need any help to be finished faster.

3) The answerer can edit or help editing the question

In case the closure of a question is already on-going -and most importantly known-, the answerer can and should edit the question, as per the help-center, same paragraph about not answering bad questions :

Don't forget that you can edit the question you're answering to improve the clarity and focus - this can reduce the chances of the question being closed or deleted.

It should be done when the question runs the risk of getting struck by the close-hammers (plural, they're not one). Ideally you do it before you answer it. However, if you went a little too fast in answering before others judged it, it's always possible to improve the question to avoid closure, or help the asker if you fear that you might alter too much what they want. Pick and Peck, you could use your own answer to help them keep their question open (e.g. for Lack of details/clarity : Am I right with the assumptions I made with your world in my answer? Can I add them to your question?).

It's all in the mindset that questions and answers are intertwined : You can't really answer correctly bad questions. That's the key point of good answers, you need to have a clear, well-defined target to aim it. Otherwise you're most likely to miss what the asker wants or clumsily answering that you don't know where the target is! Soooo... It's as simple as improving bad questions before answering.

Since you should be an expert in the domain -if not a SE veteran-, it should be easier to spot the question's weaknesses and work on them. If you don't do this, you risk finding out that your answer doesn't match the new and actual question or didn't help that much. Frustation is then ensured. And if you realize there could be an issue with the question, defend it with the asker 🛡️. Your answer is part of the question too, after all!

---

---

---

In conclusion

TL;DR people, here is your starting line!

There are many ways and reasons an answerer have in order to help improving the question. And, if the question is improved to be considered as fit, cozy and nice, is there ever the need to keep people from answering it 🦋?

That's the key thing here : Questions are not stuck in time, they can evolve through both the asker but others! And this flip the direction we should see things : It's not about not answering bad questions, it's about not having bad questions with answers. And with their knowledge and their point of view, the answerers are in one of the best spot to give an hand at that task!

In practice

As much as you can remind people that answering bad questions can have nasty consequences, I'd advise to cooperate with answerers in improving the question, removing the need to recall that at all. If they don't understand why they should help, then remind the hassle they or the asker might run into, as a reason to do that, not as an action to avoid taking.

In order to do that, you have to check one or two things beforehand :

1. Does this question is having a debate about closure? By debate, I mean at least a comment + close vote (if you can see it), comment + negative vote or several comments (counting comment upvotes). All of these should not be yours.
2. If there's a debate on-going, how many people are agreeing with the idea of a closure and how many are disagreeing? In other words, how obvious the outcome of the vote(s) to close are?

If you're the only one to think the question's not good enough to be answered, or in overall it's not that obvious it should be closed, don't remind people to not answer bad questions. It would be a one-on-one opinion fight, where no-one will be the victor. Instead wait a little until others approve your opinion or -if you're more invested- ask something like this :

I have some contradicting opinion on whether the question's should be closed or not, can you explain why do you think this question should be kept open and answered in its current state, as told in the help-center? Or can you help improve on the points which have been raised?

If there's a debate, and it's really obvious (you're far from being the only one and there's no one opposing the closure or it's already been closed), then you can remind people of the risk they're... uh... risking. It's the only time I'd recall the issues, but for the purpose of inciting on lending an hand to the question. For instance for a question which needs detail or focus :

The question's currently undergoing a closure debate and it seems to lean towards a closure at the time I write. It is generally not advised to answer a question in these circumstances, as it could lead to some frustration to both the asker and yourself as you might have missed what the asker wanted exactly. Can you help them to prevent the closure of their question before it happens/help reopening the question with them?

All of this effort should be scaled relatively to the potential impact of answering bad questions : as small as a mouse 🐭. Don't go on a witch hunt and don't repeatedly remind the same person about improving questions, that's demanding too much from occasional or busy contributors and possibly harassing. Also, not all questions can or will be salvaged by the author, so you might want to strike only at questions where the asker's investment is clearer. Don't remind every answerer either, we don't want a comment festival :).

Finally, don't ever ask the answer's deletion or edition to "help" the asker, that's something that must come from the answerer themselves to avoid unnecessary frustration and arguments. They have the right to answer and it's the site's main purpose, after all.

Answer 6

First of all, I want to comment on your original comments:

Please don't answer idle curiosity questions that have no worldbuilding context.

While it is a statement that may look like a 'gentle reprimand' on the surface and it carries no hostile intent toward the answerer, it belittles the original questioner. This statement is also based on your very specific and very subjective assessment of the question, which is not necessarily correct or shared by other people.

For example, you say:

it needs some kind of worldbuilding context;

I personally find a mention of resurrection and the fact that the question is about a character to be a sufficient worldbuilding context. Most of the other information about the setting is irrelevant to questions about psychology.

it is story based (it asks about actions of the character);

The question does not ask about the actions of the character. Please let me quote the question for you: 'As I have never been stabbed or killed, how would this PTSD manifest?'. The question asks about PTSD symptoms, not character actions.

it has prior research problems (did you ask google first?);

Did you ask the questioner whether they did their research or not? Your comments show that you did not. You just assumed that they did no research. These are your comments to the question:

Hi Ren! I'd like to address a couple issues. First, I voted to close your query because a) it's a matter of idle curiosity and b) you are not asking a worldbuilding related question. Please check out our tour, our help center and learn what WB is all about before asking questions. Lastly, it is considered very poor form to award the green checkmark within 48 hours of asking a question. Please be patient --- someone might have come along with a better answer! – elemtilas Nov 16 at 3:53

On point A: we're not here to satisfy your idle curiosity. It took google a whopping 0.55 seconds to bring up half a million hits on knife related ptsd. On B: we're here to help you with issues or problems you're facing while making a fictional world. In order to help us answer your questions, we need to learn some context about your fictional world. You didn't provide that to us. You did a much better job with your merfolk calendar query!! That's the kind of question we handle here. – elemtilas Nov 16 at 3:55

To be honest, I find the whole attitude of these comments highly problematic. I do not see even a shadow of an attempt to help the questioner (which is supposed to be the purpose of the WB.SE).

But even if we do not focus on the wording of the comments, an ability to find 'half a million hits on knife related ptsd' does not equal an ability to find an answer to the question or even an ability to distinguish between useful and useless information. I have some background in psychology and I know a little bit about PTSD, but I would need to spend some time reading different papers to come up with a decent answer. Someone who has no similar background would struggle even more or might be completely unable to figure this out.

it's pretty clearly a question of idle real world curiosity.

You have no proof that this is 'a question of idle real world curiosity'. You never asked. This is your own, subjective, unsubstantiated claim that you keep repeating without any attempt to verify it.

From my point of view, it is a good question that only needs some more details. If the OP answered my question in the comments I would've written an answer.

---

Going back to your original 'Can we Encourage People to NOT Answer Questions that Need to be Closed?'

Yes, we can. However, should we do it? Probably no. Especially in a situation where the definition of 'questions that need to be closed' is subjective and sometimes is not based on rules or any objective or even explicitly stated criteria.

If you absolutely need to encourage people to do something, I would suggest encouraging questions for clarifications and discouraging comments based on speculations. That would be much more beneficial to the WB.SE than anything else.

---

P.S.

Please note that your query does sound like a policy proposal. You include the policy tag and write this:

following from our policy of not answering queries that, for any reason, look like they need to be fixed, should we encourage people who have answered these questions to not to answer questions like this in future or not as a matter of general practice?

'A matter of general practice' is a de facto policy. You might want to reword your question if you do not want people to see your words as a policy proposal.

Answer 7

As a person who has been in this situation several times, and was the source of the incident that inspired this post where I posted an answer to a question fairly early and then got ordered to shut up and not post, I can note that I find it extremely discouraging and unpleasant when I am told not to answer because it doesn't meet whatever criteria, so from personal experience, I can say it's effective at discouraging people like me from posting. I've stopped posting for a while several times after warnings like it.

In this case, I have a degree level knowledge of it and regularly work with people with ptsd, so I felt it would be useful as a worldbuilding element to give them some common criteria that cause a situation to be more traumatizing than another.

It's common for highly upvoted question to be about how an individual reacts to some element of the world, like this question on Santa, or this question on time travel or this question on immortality so there's no firm moderation stance about that sort of thing. I felt my experience could give them a useful idea about how to connect better with people based on some common criteria I have seen in case studies and the literature and real life.

Their question was fairly on point- can you get PTSD from being stabbed if you are later resurrected, a question easily answered by noting the common experience of many people with ptsd of being powerless, vulnerable, and immobilized which aren't removed by resurrection. I certainly felt it fit in with similar approved posts, like how Santa would respond to the authorities, or how a time travel would prep, or how an immortal would prove they were immortal.

That's my personal experience of how the comment was taken, and why I wrote an answer to the question. I am against encouraging people to not answer questions, because I have often seen good questions rejected because of the many random whims of worldbuilders. Better to assume the best, and avoid discouraging comments.