Closures: 8 of 10 by 2026-05-25, Sanity Check, how to do better?

I believe that if one of us can work out what the OP probably wants, particularly if they're new, we should edit the question ourselves rather than copping out and slapping the VTC button. We have the power to edit - we even get badges for editing - so we should use that power, and then leave a comment on the question saying that the OP can edit it themselves if we've got it wrong. — @Monty

I fundamentally agree with this, but I'd like to add to it

I've done that myself: edited a user's post to fix it and then left a comment explaining the edit and inviting the user to roll-back the edits if they didn't like them. Nine times out of ten, it's appreciated.

But! In the back of my mind is that ever-present worry about intent. I can't read the OP's mind. I can, at best, only believe that I understand what the OP is after. I've actually had arguments with people in the comments to an answer I gave to a question that I should have "thought of this" or "thought of that" or "limited my answer because of this" or "expanded my answer because of that," followed by my inevitable comment, "the OP didn't ask for/about that... if you think it's important, get a clarification from the OP."

1. I've debated with people because my interpretation of what the OP wanted wasn't what someone else thought the OP wanted. I've occasionally had to pull rank ("Kiddo, I have 140K+ rep and you have 1,500...") but I only do that when I'm absolutely exhausted with the debate. The fundamental problem here is that we deal with such a creative and imaginative topic that even when we are expected to act in the role of "physics-lite" (which I loathe), it's too easy for two or more people to disagree about what a third was thinking.

2. And then there's the problem of our somewhat unwritten policy (I think it did finally get written...) that if someone answers, no edit is permitted that invalidates that answer. I'll be honest with you, I'm kinda sick to death of that policy. It forces the OP into having to ask the question again to clarify what they really meant — and I've seen those questions closed as duplicates with the argument that they should have edited their first question. This policy is a lose-lose proposition that makes the answers more important than the needs of the OP. Honestly, shame on us for making the "experienced" community more important than the new user. Someone tell me to post a Meta policy change that vacates that particular belief. I'm that close to the edge.

Now, hold that thought while I address another of the important issues @Monty's brought up

Monty's absolutely right, there's a small group of us that are the close-vote leaders. I'd like to believe that I'm at least 90% correct when I post a close vote (and at least 99.9% correct when I both VTC and down vote), but I've also caught myself being more concerned about the rules than I am about participation on the Stack.

Monty, while I'm thinking about it, is there a hammer-open ability that's the mirror of the hammer-close ability? I'm a gold-badge science-based user, which means given the right balance of supporting tags, my one vote closes the question. Does that mean my one vote would also open it?

When I notice my behavior is too much, I step away from the Stack for a week or two to "cool off" and reset my expectations. But I like to think that at least I'm providing clear explanations as to why I'm closing — and even clear explanations concerning a problem even when I'm not closing — and those explanations can reach the 5-6 comments-in-length point.

Frankly, @Monty's admonition to edit rather than close makes sense — especially from the point of view of my willingness to provide paragraphs of instruction (which have even occasionally found their way into my answers — I've been chastised for that, too).

One more thing about @Monty's perceived threat...

Stack Exchange has an existing policy against persistent down-voters. Most often they're "revenge votes" cast by one individual against many or all of another person's questions and answers due to some offense, real or imagined. Have you ever noticed when you lose or gain rep because a user's been removed? Yup, it's often because of behavior like this.

I wouldn't be surprised if SE had a similar policy against serial close-voters. I might be irritated if the Mods sent me an email telling me I was over-the-top and needed to cool off or else (I've actually received such an email due to a comment debate years ago) — but I shouldn't be ashamed. Our mods frequently don't get directly involved unless things are basically out of control and I've found reason to respect their dedication to the stack. So, yes, I believe it's a reasonable for the mods to take action against serial close voters, knowing perfectly well that I could be one of those black-star recipients. After all, an 80% close record for those listed, consecutive questions is deplorable.

Which is why I can buy into editing

We believe in the power of community editing. That means once you've generated enough reputation, we trust you to edit anything in the system without it going through peer review. Not just your posts—anyone's posts! — Help Center - edit posts privilege

Editing is important for keeping posts clear, relevant, and up-to-date. If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited by other trusted users, this may not be the site for you. — Help Center - Why can people edit my posts?

To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning). — Help Center - both pages

We need to embrace this idea more fully — even if it means backing away from (or completely vacating) the no-edits-may-invalidate-answers policy. If we're that worried about invalidating answers, edit the post then leave comments on the answers telling them post edits may have invalidated their answers and they need to update their answers, if necessary. It should be our responsibility as experienced users to keep up with the needs of the OP, not the OP's responsibility to kowtow to our answers. (Sorry, irritated....)

But we do need to pay great attention to the idea of clarifying the meaning without changing it. In other words, we're not permitted to change the question into "what the OP should have asked" or what we think would be a better question. We should be editing it to make what we're reasonably sure the OP meant is made clear.

I up-voted your answer, @Monty.

Looking at each of these questions:

1. I mod-hammered that one closed myself. It was way, way too many questions in one. The OP could have split it up and made heaps of rep with a whole series of questions. However, they're a new user, probably with not enough motivation, and no-one can do it for them.

2. I was the last of 5 VTCs on this one. I usually only VTC as the last vote unless the question is really bad, since I'm dragging this mod-hammer around with me, and I can't choose not to use it any other way. This question didn't make a lot of sense to me... probably bad translation combined with poor explanation... and the OP's profile link is dead, so I can't find out any more about them... at least not without looking at their PII, which I don't like to do.

3. I didn't VTC on this one, but I agree that it needs work. It's a poorly-written wall of text, and it's too open-ended. Its OP isn't a new SE user, but they don't have much rep in any SE site.

4. I mod-hammered this one closed all by myself. As it stands it's a 'gimme a list of things' question with no objective criteria for a best answer other than 'practical' and 'not a giant sword'. It's clearly not a good question.

5. It's a good question, though I didn't feel motivated to answer it. It got a couple of downvotes, but no close votes at all. All good here.

6. I didn't VTC on this one, but it's clearly asking for subjective opinions, so I agree with the VTC.

7. Again, I didn't VTC, but I agree that it's more an open-ended social chit-chat question than the type of question we encourage, and it would easily fail the book test.

8. There are a couple of VsTC for "Needs Details" on this one, and it has been a pain in my butt, given all the comment chains and not-an-answer answers it has received. The question is straight-forward to me, but a lot of (now deleted) answers seem to have gone off on a tangent trying to explain things that don't need to be explained, and ignoring the actual question.

9. I don't agree with the VTC for focus here, but not so much that I want to mod-hammer it back open, since it might just get closed again. There's one clear question (How do I make my cannons intimidating?), so how is this unfocused?

10. I'm not sure I agree with the VTC here either. Too story based? I don't entirely like that close reason, and I'm not sure that this one is too story based. It may be about the actions of one person (who is presenting evidence), but ultimately it is about what 'the authorities' are going to accept as evidence. Again, I might have hammered it back open, but what's the point if it only gets VTCed again?

My belief is that we are being much too stringent with VTCs. A closed question is very discouraging to a new user. Once a user is used to the way SE works, they're not so bad, but to a new user, it's like a slap in the face.

Then, even for experienced users, there's the issue that if a question gets closed and the OP edits it, it takes time for the reopen votes to come around, and it may be left closed as 'close reasons not resolved'. I know that when I ask a question, it's often something that I'm working on right now, and that delay is annoying. A closed question can be a 'Why should I bother with this any more?' issue. Let's avoid that, please.

The VTCs also seem to come from a small number of users... and I'm looking at you sphennings... you're very often the first to VTC many questions that end up closed. I've even taken to thinking of you as 'The Closer' in my own mind. There are a number of other 'Closers' that regularly come up in lists of close voters... JBH, Trish, Escaped Dental Patient, KerrAvon2055... the list goes on a bit. The problem is that VsTC are visible and one encourages the next... and the next... and pretty soon the question is closed. I'm even guilty of that myself. I've considered bans for excessive use of VTC powers, but couldn't justify it to myself since VTCing is accepted and by design on SE. However, I'm watching you, guys... please don't give me an excuse.

So, the question is how we can avoid VTCing?

Sometimes we can't, such as when a question is asking a dozen different things, is an incoherent wall of text, or would really fail the book test. However, what about the marginal questions? Can someone work out what the OP probably wants, especially if they're a new user, to either WB.SE or SE in general?

I believe that if one of us can work out what the OP probably wants, particularly if they're new, we should edit the question ourselves rather than copping out and slapping the VTC button. We have the power to edit - we even get badges for editing - so we should use that power, and then leave a comment on the question saying that the OP can edit it themselves if we've got it wrong.

Many new users seldom respond to comments. It's good if they do, but if they don't, they'd probably be more encouraged by (possibly) helpful edits than the discouragement of a closed question. New users, particularly if they're entirely new to SE, would likely see/feel [CLOSED] as 'we don't want [that question/you] here'.

So, if a question needs work and it's a low-rep user, let's help by editing it if we can, and save those VTCs as a measure of last resort. If it's a 'Too story-based' question... point that out in comments, and answer it anyway, at least until they have more rep.

Part of my observation is based upon the behaviour of some new users. Based on the question post time and the user's last-seen time, it appears that some new users post a question and then go away for a few days, probably intending to come back and read the answers, as if this was a traditional chat site like Reddit or a BB. Closed questions really only work when the user who posted the closed question is active, so that they can see the close and respond to it quickly. Low-activity users might easily come back, see that their question was closed days ago, and give up... and that probably means a lost user.

No Compete Clause

I am in agreement with both Monty and JBH. In the interest of a) answering the question (yes, we can do better!) and b) tying the two answers together, I think what you two are getting to is a moderate reformation of current WB.SE culture & attitude.

I've often been a voice arguing for a question in the VTC queue and against the rationale proposed for closing. These have typically been "opinion based" and "story based" arguments. If someone is playing Twenty Questions, yeah that should be closed and divided up into twenty proper questions. I think that is a sane use of the VTC power.

What I'm seeing here is a call for reform of these three areas of our Policy:

1. Story Based: Both of you advocate for less restriction on this type of question. I concur. This has been addressed by JBH recently as a policy change, if I recall correctly. We've been talking about this in Meta for years. Therefore let the Cabal approve the change to allow story based queries!
2. Detail: How much detail is really needed in a question? I know we've gone both ways with querents on this one. I think we often let questions slide that need better detail; and I also think we harp on querents who are actually providing sufficient detail. It's just not the detail we want to see. I'd rather offer grace to querents and just answer the query they're asking rather than badger them into submission by enforcing a perhaps too strong code of requirement. Therefore let the Cabal back off a bit and restrain ourselves from overburdening what can be seen a legitimately sufficient question!
3. Editing: This is going to be the greatest change to Policy. We've long had the Policy of no edits that invalidate an answer. I've gone off on respondents that answer a query right away while there is obviously one or more concerns about the question itself. I do find this to be a less than ideal practice. Have I done it myself? Yes. What is the result? The result is that we often end up with an unhappy querent who has a really good question idea, but can no longer edit her question because one or more of us have answered, and also can not legally ask the question again though slightly edited because we'd then have to VTC for being a duplicate. This policy has caused a lot of trouble, and I'm actually pretty sick of it too. I've also been coming to the opinion that we worry too much about the perceived sanctity of the question. Other SE forums have a terribly savage relationship with questions: if it doesn't make sense or needs some details, edit it! We've got the edit button too, but for as long as I've been here, we've had this hesitancy about actually using it! I think both of you are saying the same thing: if a query needs some work, help out the querent by editing! I think it's good practice to make a notation in comments or even in the question body that we've made an edit; I think it's also good practice to preserve, as much as possible, the individual voice of the querent. Sometimes they ask in-world or in-character questions. Those are often delightful! Therefore: let the Cabal VACATE the no editing policy!

I do think that if we go with these changes, we should also really try hard to go back into the Ancient Archives and do the $\color{red}{\textrm{[red notation]}}$ thing that a particular policy is no longer in effect.

EDIT: Policy modification discussions posted.