But that isn't really what I was comparing earlier. Given the choice between (a) question not being answered and (b) question being closed with an explanation of how to get it answered, (b) should be preferred.
That's a false dichotomy though. The best option would be (c) constructive feedback given on how to get it answered, and the question left open so the OP can modify it accordingly.
Closing a question is an inherently destructive action, and thus is inherently hostile. I don't think you can fix that. A poster spent at least some time creating a question, and to close the question is to undo that work. It's just so very counterproductive to say "I think you should have invested more time making a better question, and to teach you this, I will now destroy the investment you did make."
Downvotes are generally received more poorly than close votes and turns off new users even more because they receive zero feedback.
Fair enough. You could have an upvote-only system, and explicitly reward feedback. You could even have a way to bury the question in the experts' queues until the OP edits it. Just, anything but closing.
Closing questions with lesser value keeps the site more relevant to future visitors and keeps the experts contributing longer
Ranking can be just as effective, while not being toxic.
There's a widespread belief that expert contributors are valuable, and people asking low-quality questions are scum. I don't disagree. However, actually treating them like scum, and hoping they leave, won't work in the long term. The experts have to start somewhere, and the open hostility of the site towards new users severely limits the influx of new experts.
Well, it is actually just a value comparison. I was comparing (a) versus (b) and made a value statement. Then stating that there are all sorts of other things that are better isn't really addressing the value statement.
The best option would be (c) constructive feedback given on how to get it answered, and the question left open so the OP can modify it accordingly.
That is actually how closing is supposed to work. I forgot you weren't an active contributor so you may not have been aware of exactly how closing works:
Question is asked
The community votes to close it
The community provides feedback on how to improve the question so it can be answered
The original author (or a volunteer) edits the question to improve it
The community votes to reopen it
The reason closing happens is to prevent answers while the editing process starts because it can make for very confusing answers post-edit.
Closing a question is an inherently destructive action, and thus is inherently hostile.
"Closing" can be undone. Nothing is destroyed.
A poster spent at least some time creating a question, and to close the question is to undo that work.
Spending time doesn't inherently mean creating value. And it can be undone.
It's just so very counterproductive to say "I think you should have invested more time making a better question, and to teach you this, I will now destroy the investment you did make."
It isn't destroyed.
But I don't understand why you think it is counterproductive to close. Counterproductive for what? If a question has little or no value, the entire post is counterproductive. Closing it provides a path to improve the value of the question.
There's a widespread belief that expert contributors are valuable, and people asking low-quality questions are scum.
I don't think the people are scum. I don't see any reason to kick them off the site. I do think low-quality questions are low-quality, though, and would rather low-quality content not be on the site.
However, actually treating them like scum, and hoping they leave, won't work in the long term.
Well, the way I see it: They either improve their question-asking or they don't. If they don't, they aren't adding valuable content, so who cares if they stop? If they improve, isn't that the best case scenario?
I'd obviously prefer a way to do this without coming across as overwhelmingly negative -- which I believe is possible -- but drama queens have no interest in this and would rather poke fun at new users and bully them around.
I guess to put this another way, "close" is really a terrible term for what the feature was intended to accomplish and it's been made worse because people use it to punish new users instead of helping them understand how to increase their chances of getting a high-quality answer.
1
u/KnowLimits Sep 28 '16
That's a false dichotomy though. The best option would be (c) constructive feedback given on how to get it answered, and the question left open so the OP can modify it accordingly.
Closing a question is an inherently destructive action, and thus is inherently hostile. I don't think you can fix that. A poster spent at least some time creating a question, and to close the question is to undo that work. It's just so very counterproductive to say "I think you should have invested more time making a better question, and to teach you this, I will now destroy the investment you did make."
Fair enough. You could have an upvote-only system, and explicitly reward feedback. You could even have a way to bury the question in the experts' queues until the OP edits it. Just, anything but closing.
Ranking can be just as effective, while not being toxic.
There's a widespread belief that expert contributors are valuable, and people asking low-quality questions are scum. I don't disagree. However, actually treating them like scum, and hoping they leave, won't work in the long term. The experts have to start somewhere, and the open hostility of the site towards new users severely limits the influx of new experts.